5.6 Research proposal presenations + review for exam

We finished presentations on the research proposals and it looks like you are all on the right track.  Remember that a research proposal is your "pitch" to an advisor.  It should give a CLEAR, CONCISE representation of your project.   The lit review should set up what is out there and it should make 3-5 points about what the literature "does".  If your project is NOT out there =say so.

Some general suggestions for the proposals:
Think up a clear, informative title for your project
Make sure to point out the importance of your project for writing studies
Use headings and sub-headings
Choose headings that give meaningful information about what is in each section (Introduction, methods, lit review are placeholders and may not always be the best choice)
Make good use of your timeline

We spent the rest of the class reviewing the readings in light of the Final exam (posted to the right).

As noted on the assignment sheet, the idea is to frame a coherent discussion of your research philosophy.  To write your exam, you probably want to map out your research philosopy and then think about what points you want to make about what you believe and why, and THEN decide which of the readings best support those points.  You might organize your discussion of your philosophy along the lines of your beliefs about: appropriate(effective/ethical) methods, where data should come from, where theory should come from, important focuses, the relevance of social justice, etc.


Turning in your work:  Turn in the final proposal + IRB materials, and the final exam, as attachments by 7:15 (the end of the exam period) May 13.

What a great class you have been!   Thank you for your good work and I look forward to reading your papers!

Getting your grades: I will grade/respond your work as soon as I can.  I will send you an email with my first approximation add-up of your points, probably byWednesday.  If you agree - or not- let me know and we can re-check, talk things through.  If I don't hear from you in 24 hours - I will assume you are OK with your grade and post to Keanwise.

Thanks again for your good work and the fine conversation.  Have a good summer and be in touch!

4.29 Presentation

The draft proposals and  IRB applications were due tonight. I will be reading them over the next few days, and will have feedback for everyone by next week. Those of you who presented this evening received your feedback on the proposal already.  Good work on these!

Next week, we will continue with the presentations.  This week we were a little pressed for time, since we took almost the first hour so everyone could read through the drafts.  Make sure to come to class with your comments in mind for each proposal.  To make sure everyone gets feedback, the format for presenting should not include a detailed overview of the whole proposal (since everyone will have already read the proposal in detail); rather state the following.

• A detailed statement of your research question.
• The references you expect to use, and how you expect to use them. 
• A brief outline of your plan for gathering + analyzing data.
• Requests for feedback.

Presentations will be 15 minutes each, and should balance out at under 5 minutes for the above statements and the rest for feedback. We will spend the rest of next week reviewing for the exam.   If you have questions or would like a conference on the proposal or IRB application - let me know.  Have a good week and see you soon.

4.22 Workshop IRB applications + discussion proposals

Note:  Draft proposals + IRB applications are due next week by noon, Monday, April 29.

A complete application as submitted to the IRB should include the following:
Comleted application form
NIH certificate
Any research instruments (surveys, interview protocols, etc)
Informed consent form
Debriefing form
For the purposes of this class, please turn in the following documents for the draft IRB application:
1. Completed application form
2. A DESCRIPTION of your research instruments =>You do not need to create the complete research instruments, but you do have to provide an overview of their general structure + content. 

For example, for a surve, you might give an indication of length, general categories for questions, and method of distribution.  This would give me enough information to provide some feedback on whether/what the IRB may ask you to revise.

3. Informed consent form
4. Debriefing form

The draft research proposal should cover the points set up on the assignment sheet. Also - indicate any areas where you would like feedback/support so that my comments can address your concerns.

Sign up for presentations on research proposals:
April 29: Heather, Jay, Marie, Vanessa, Rafael
May 6: Tobey, Luis, Lewis, Maria, Nikki

For your presentation on the proposal:
If this were not a draft proposal, the presentation would provide an overview of your project (its purpose, value to writing studies, how it is designed, and so on), a discussion of what has been done by other researchers + how your project "adds" to the discipline; and a discussion of your methods.

 Because this IS a draft, you may have questions or be "stuck" on some point in your proposal - so your presentation may be a presentation of the points you are OK with, along with an interactive discussion (prompted by your questions) of points you would like feedback/support on.

Your draft proposals should be emailed to me by Monday April 29, noon, so I can forward them to the class for their consideration.  This will allow for a full class workshop.

4.15 IRB forms, Wysoki, and Selfe & Selfe

You spent the first half of class working with Dr. Sutton on the IRB forms, and we spent the second half of class talking about how computer technologies are changing what writing is, the way we teach writing, and discourses surrounding writing. 

New week is a whole class workshop.  You will work on finishing up the IRB materials and on your drafts for your research proposals. 

You will sign up for presentations for the April 29 and May 6.

I also asked you to think about good questions for your final exam.  We will spend a little time talking about the exam (to think about the question) next week; the review will be May 6. 

The final exam will, along with the final draft of the IRB materials + your research proposal, will be due May 13.

Have a good week.

4.8 Midterm, quantitative data, and proposal assignment sheet

Exam 1. We started class with a review of the midterm.  You did an outstanding job on this.  As I said in class, points off were almost entirely for omitting one of the points requested in the exam. You generally did an outstanding job in your analysis of the sectitons you presented. 

I announced at the end of the break that if you hate the score you got on your midterm, and if you get a higher grade on your final, I will give you double the grade on your final (if it is higher).

We also spent some time discussing when and whether it is OK for outsiders to do research on/represent the experiences of individuals in groups they don't belong to.  It's not like we resolved questions surrounding this issue, but you raised a number of good points:
identities are social, not entirely or even necessarily biological;
good communication with participants can go a long way toward validating data about "others";
asking participants to interpret/check/write up data does not provide the same kinds of rewards for them as it does for primary researchers and they deserve compensation;
providing information about your background/identity/assumptions can help provide context that will help readers understand your interpretations of "others";
doing research demands different kinds of "validity" than what is required of say, a man writing a novel where the protagonist is a woman

Even though we did not get to the end of this, it is important to think about these issues, because (also as we observed in class discussion) even when you might think you are a member of the group you are studying - individual differences can be profound, and you must be constantly senstive to projecting your assumptions onto your data.

Assignment sheet for research proposal (posted to the right): Hopefully this will serve as a supplement to the guide provided by Mertens.  You requested some additional direction in terms of the literature review - so we will talk through some samples from your text book next week.

Bruffee:  Thank you, Luis.  Posted to the right.  Social constructionist pedagogy focuses on teaching discursive patterns - as opposed to teaching "content".

Quantitative data:  Dr. Sutton's data sheets were emailed to you and we talked through them in class.  Although it states on the calendar that you will work on the data set for homework, I think what you did in class is probably sufficient.  The purpose was to give you a "taste" of how to make descisions about how to collect, organize, analyze and represent your data using quantitative methods.  You are by no means experts - but you have had an introduction to some of the issues you will need to keep an eye out for. 

Breuch:  Marie did an excellent job of presenting Breuch's discussion of post-process pedagogy.  I especially appreciated her mention of Kent's reply to Breuch, where he repudiates her attempts to pose pedagogical practices for what he represents as an individualized (NOT systematic in any teachable way), situated (irrevocably dependent on context) phenomenon => where meaning (writing) emerges as language-in-use that can not be taught.  Breuch's point is that even if we reject universalizing theories of what writing is, there are points of intervention and pedagogical moves that can support what writers do as they write. 

For next class:
I am still catching up on responding to reaction papers (re-written and otherwise) and you should have all feedback before next class.

In class we will talk through the purpose of institutional review, talk through how it works here at Kean University, and get you started on your applications.  Even if you will not need to do an application for your project at the present time, I am suggesting that you walk through the process and turn in an application for my review = so that when the time comes you will know what to expect.

We will then talk about the two essays focused on how nem communication technologies are re-framing "literacy" and how we think of as reading and writing
Read: Selfe & Selfe, 739;  Wysoki, 717; IRB materials  (posted to the right)

Additional note:  I seem to have inadvertantly scheduled an "informational session" for the MA in Writing Studies (on East Campus) from 4:30 - 5:30 on April 15.  Obviously I can't be two places at one time - so you may have someone other than me coaching you on the IRB materials.  I expect to be present for the second part of class - and our discussion of Wysoki, & Selfe & Selfe. 

You are not assigned to watch "The Man Who Shot Literty Valence" = and I am not saying it is a good movie, but definitely projects the version of the Literacy Myth from mid-20th century onto the American West, and this is the "story" or "bundle of stories" that Wysoki is asking us to become aware of, and to reject.

4.1 Literacy narratives + project proposals

Talk about the exam.
We started class with a useful discussion of questions/reflections associated with the exam.  Several of you pointed out that placing the essays within a research paradigm was not simple (or clear) and that you spent some time reviewing what the assumptions were for each approach.  I was very happy to hear that - because that was one of my central objectives for the exam = to get you to think (hard) the underlying assumptions within the research we read (and write!) and to notice how those assumptions drive results.  As we have repeatedly said in class - if you can support (with evidence from the text) a line of reasoning for why a particular piece of research fits within a particular paradigm - you are probably OK.  As we also observed in this discussion, the object of research in the humanities is often not so much to prove one correct uncontestable answer - as to explore and define the dimensions of very complex questions. 

Finishing up our discussion of oral history/narrative research.
Tobey provided us with an excellent overview of Hawisher & Self, Pearson & Moraski's co-authored piece on relationships between emerging digital communication technologies and literacies.  Below are the notes from the board which reflect the focus of the main patterns pointed out in the article (summed up in the essay's intro + conclusion).

cultural ecology - macro, medial, and micro environments that shape and are shaped by the literacy practices of the individuals who live within them
gateways -for some literacies, school will not be the only or even the most important gateway
literacies have lifespans
agency - is shaped by macro, medial and micros circumstances
literacy circulates both up and down through generations

Tobey also led us in a discussion of participatory research/work co-authored with participants, and we talked around the same circle where leading researchers in the field have laid a well trodden path.  It is one thing to "listen" to participants - another to focus on their stories - and still another to present their interpretations.  At the same time, there will be questions about the level of co-authorship so long as the research directs the analytic/interpretive process => and WRITING is an interpreetive process.  In some ways, so long as researchers "write up" the essays - it is hard to gage the level of co-authorship. 

She also pointed out how the essay brings issues back to the role of teachers/educators.  We more or less summed this up in terms of being "open" and "flexible" => and paying attention.  In some ways, to be effective teachers, we have to learn as much as we teach => or we will miss the boat,

Brandt also points out issues associated with changing technologies and the responsibilites of educators.  We used our discussion of Brandt as a way to check in on criteria for effective reaction papers.  We began by reviewing the essay's main points (listed below):
 

Define sponsorship = provide opportunities, places, introduce to practices + material

Patterns of sponsorship

Sponsorship + access => stratification

Sponsorship + the literacy crisis=> competition

Sponsorship and agency = appropriation
Reflections + role of educators

We then reviewed the assignment sheet, and looked at the reaction paper posted on the previous page of this blog - and noted the strengths and weaknesses.  The strongest criticism whas in terms of the quality of the critique.  You noticed that the essay brings in the author's experience, but does not really develop a focused point with respect to Brandt's theoretical frame in terms of that point.  You also noticed that the discussion of the paradigm needed to be more clearly articulated and set forward with a "point"(such as discussion of consequences that follow from the choice of that paradigm).  Overall, though, we all agreed this was a strong reaction paper.

The rest of class was devoted to brainstorming/reviewing topics for your research projects with the object (for me) to discover what you need/want in terms of guidance.  We agreed that the directions in the book are so extensive as to be confusing, and that an assignment sheet could help clarify the dimensions of the project.  In our discussion you pointed out that you would like an assignments sheet with the following features.

good visual design = clearly laid out points rather than long paragraphs, heading to represent levels of importance, etc

guidance re the literature review in terms of what KINDS of references, how many references, and what kind of discussion is appropriate
I know there were more points than this on our list - but this is all that seems to have copied into the blog so I will do my best on the rest.

I will have an assignment sheet posted before next class.

For next week:
I will return your exams and we will disucss them
Read: Mertens, Ch 13 - quantitative analysis (skim this=pick out the points you think will be relevant to your work, and draw attention to them in class); Bruffee, 395;   Breuch, 97.

I anticipate having a guest speaker (TBA) to talk through a sample data set.

Good class and see you next week!

Reaction papers

The function for adding files to linklists on Blogger is  not working, so I have posted the reaction papers here.

Selfe and Hawisher

Brandt

3.25 History, oral history, interviews & review for the exam

Deborah Brandt's essay is posted to the right, under readings, and Hawisher and Selfe is available through the data bases at the Kean University library (for complete reference info you can click on the link under readings).

History and Oral History.  We had a theoretical discussion about why you might choose to do historical research, about how hard it can be to step out of our present perspective and "see" the past - or someone else's perspective on the past - in a way that allows "facts" that we may not necessarily believe in, and about alternatives to Mertens' step by step guide to "how to do historical research".  Mertens is extremely well organized and methodical - and she has clear guidelines/answers for most questions researchers might ask.  The point of our discussion was to allow that there might be other ways to look at doing research, and to re-think the material from within our individual perspectives. 

Becoming aware of assumptions.Within our discussion of assumptions that might be difficult to be aware of - or to step out of - we made a list.  Below are some ideas/perspectives on eductation, teaching and the world in general, that might be difficult to "allow" from a middle class 21st century, New Jersey perspective.

• the "correctness' or usefulness of teaching practices = the structure and focus of teaching from earlier time periods
• the way learning disabilities were talked about and dealt with within the educational systen
• some of the more ethnocentric assumptions about "the way the world is" that were associated with more homogeneous, less fragmented, less "global" & interdependent, less diverse communities
• assumptions about entitlement (who was expected to have power)
• the way "intelligence" was defined - and who got to define it
• whose voice/opinions/perspectives dominated media & assumptions about "the way the world is"
• who has the right to speak
• what counts as "fact" - or the assumption that there are unequivocal facts
• who owns history - and ideas of what counts as history and what history is

You  also created an alternative lists for research processes - the organization of tasks you would undertake to complete your research project.  Your lists included different tasks set up in an order that was different from the list in Mertens.  The point of this discussion was to notice that:

• the focus of your inquiry & the order in which you undertake your research process will both reflect and define your axiology + epistemology (if you are a transformative researcher - you would probably begin your work through conversations with your group - rather than archival research or surveying disciplinary journals to define a problem)
• research process is almost always recursive - rather than a single set of steps

Interviews
After these discussions we quickly reviewed the interview protocol developed by Hawisher & Selfe for the literacy narrative research they conducted for Literate Lives - a collection of literacy narratives documenting changing literacy practices accompanying the move from print to the screen.  You took notes on the protocol to characterize how it was "built" - and we then discussed how the structure of the protocol would allow for talk that would produce rich, storied data relevant to Hawisher and Selfe's  focus. 

Exam. We spent the rest of the evening reviewing what we have read so far - mostly the readings rather than Mertens, and talking through the exam question.  It sounded to me like you all have a good hand on the material.  The best advice I can give you is to read & re-read the exam question, ask questions (by email) if you are confused, and write to the prompts.  I will evaluate the answers in terms of whether they answer the questions posed by the prompt and the quality of "evidence" used to support the answers.  Good luck!

For next week.
Due before class by email: Exam 1
Read: Deborah Brandt (pdf) posted to the right; Hawisher & Selfe (available through Kean Library)

We will spend the first part of class discussing oral history/literacy narrative studies, and the second part of class will be devoted to work on your research proposals. 

Focus: You have some drafty writing from the beginning of the term. If you have changed your mind or "tweaked" your ideas - great!  There is still time to change.  Your focus should: be of some importance to the discipline (writing studies); be something you are interested enough in to spend some time with; and have a "window" or perspective which will allow you to design a "doable" project => where doable means you can complete it in about 6 months, and that it can provide a basis for a 30 page paper (not a book).

Methods. By this point you should be able to select from a "buffet" of methods (literature review, comparative, survey, ethnography, autoethnography, phenomenological, grounded theory, case study,  interview, oral history, historical, and so on) - in addition to the methods for close readings and textual analysis you brought from your background in English.  Think about which methods are the best match for your paradigmatic leanings - and for your project.

We will talk about this next week. 

Exam reivew

Berlin (1982), 235 

historical review of the development of composition
literature review (sort of)

identified himself as a new rhetorician

Berlin idenfitied oedoagogies that (roughly) coirrelated with the research paradigms

provides an overview of the field 

Brodkey  (1989) p 621.

comparative methods

literacy letters between teachers and adult basic writing students

people who have power control the information/direction of conversation

class + gender partly define who has power

check out the intro=> what we can say/how we will say it  is determined by our identities

= our identities are socially constructed

what do composition teachers need to do in light of what she finds in the literacy letters

Anderson et al (2006, pdf on Course Blog); 

survey= very long

quantitative methods

classifying different kind of uses of new media in writing pedagogies - what kinds of courses, assignments, where taught, etc

purpose= characterize the use of new media in writing programs

methodology?  

look at findings at the end = agenda?

Royster (1996), 555

focus on voice = who has the right to define it. thoerize it and etc

autobiographical= autoethnographic, phenomenological

reflects on three past experiences

strenghts & weaknesses

method + findings work well together

Elbow (1999), 641

advocated multiple revisions to work towards standard English

support for mother tongue

transformative? make college writing more acessible

qualitative/reflective  = autobiographical

is this research?

is this a case study? personal essay?

Perl (1976), 17

grounded theory/case study

composing practices of unskilled college writers

two different kinds of writing

talk aloud protocol

mixed methods?

findings were? 

Castillo & Chandler (2013), pdf

interview/oral history=> literacy narrative

participatory/collaborative analysis

narrative analysis = connects to power structures + cultural stories/forms=social constructivist

case study

Bartholomae (1985),523 
purpose = point out need to focus on discursive features rather than on "correctness"issues
voice/auhority "privilege" = look at Rafael's notes
transformative? social construction too
discourse analysis of student papers

Heath (1983) pdf;
ethnographic = participant observation supplemented with interviews
literacy  events
societies that rely on oral traditions not inferior to written 
can't judge value of written/oral out of context
social constructivist? transformative?

Material covered by Exam 1

Berlin (1982), 235 

Brodkey  (1989) p 621.

Anderson et al (2006, pdf on Course Blog); 

Royster (1996), 555;

Elbow (1999), 641

Perl (1976), 17;

Castillo & Chandler (2013), pdf

Bartholomae (1985),523 ;  

Heath (1983) pdf;

Mertens, Chapters 1, 5, 6, & 8.

To study, you should notice the main concept of the essay, the methodological choices, and whether the methodological choices of the essays were a good choice for the researchers' purposes. 

During the review session in class I will answer any questions, and  we will go over the essays in terms of these issues listed above.

See you tomorrow.

3.18 Heath & Bartholomae and review of qualitative methods

Important note:  I gave the wrong assignment for next week at the end of class. See note below for the correct assignment (Tobey pointed out to me that I was referring to the wrong syllabus).

 We started class with a review of the qualitative methods listed on page 230.  The point was to notice that this is a non-exclusive, non-categorical list.  For example, you might design a participatory, ethnographic case study that uses grounded theory to analyze the data.  Ethnography is defined both by its focus on the identities/values/belief systems/etc as understood by insiders to a particular group, and by its use of participant observation.  Case study, as discussed in class, is defined by focus on a bounded set of participants or data.  Phenomenological research focuses on the moment-by-moment "becomings" within subjective (personal) perceptions of experience.  Grounded theory is a method for data ANALYSIS and can be applied to data sets collected through different methods included ethnographic participant observation, interview, oral history, and focus group practices.  Participatory research is identified by the relationship between researchers & participanbts, and focus groups are defined by the configuration of the data collection situation and attention both to "what is said" and the dynamic social interactions which contribute to what is said.  So in preparation for the exam, look over the list of methods and think about what methods were used by which researchers in the essays we have read so far.

Ethnography.  Before Rafael and Lewis gave their presentations, we had a brief review of ethnographic methods as presented in Mertens - and supplemented it with information in the handout on Ethnographic fieldnotes (posted to the right).  We talked about "jottings"- how to take them, the tensions between participating and writing, and what kinds of "jots" to write down.  We also talked about supplementing jottings with "headnotes" (everything you can remember) as soon after you finish your time in the "field" as apossible.  This is all covered in the first 2 chapters of Emerson.

You then were asked to take ethnographic notes on one of the presentations - either Rafael's or Lewis'. 

Heath and Bartholomae.  Discussion covered the main points in each essay for Heath we observed how she redefined literacy in a way that eliminated the polarization betwen "oral" and "literate" and how she noted the cultural component in terms of the way literacy was practiced and valued.  For Bartholomae, we noted how the essay's purpose & audience (college writing teachers) may have been "revolutionary" in its time, and how current traditional teachers (where teachers are expected to teach correctness rather than discourse => language move for stepping into "academic" authority) may still disagree with the approach to teaching basic writing advocated in this essay. 

For next week:
We will begin with a review of your ethnographic notes.  Be prepared for a conversation about what you noticed, your strategy (or strategies) for writing notes, what went easily, what was hard, and what you might try next time.
Read: Mertens, Ch9 Historyt and Narrative study of lives; review Appendix (research proposal) p451

In class we will discuss Ch 9 + try out some of the methods, re-visit the research interests list and set up the research proposal assignment, and review for the EXAM.

As per your request, it will be a take-home exam, and I will distribute it at the end of class.

Fun class tonight - and see you next week.

3.4 Qualitative research: grounded theory and par

Elbow:  We began class with Vanessa's presentation on Peter Elbow's take on how best to support speakers of nonmainstream English in learning Standard Written English.  Elbow points out in his introduction that writing teachers can feel torn between conflicting goals + obligations.  Specifically, writing teachers goal to teach "the written language of power and prestige" and their obligation to respect students' rights to their home languages.  The essay focuses on practices Elbow hopes will negotiate that conflict.

His approach - which is provided in detail - is to encourage/support students in writing in their home language by abandoning current traditional practices for focusing on "correctness" and shifting to practices for receiving an validating work written in home language, and fosterring concrete practices for working through successive drafts in terms of conferencing, copy-editing and modeling revision practices so that students cultivate a process for creating SWE - when they choose to.

He poses a (sort of satisfactory) answer to objections by linguists - that moving from home languages to SWE is NOT simply about copy editing - but rather a move from a mother tongue to a foreign tongue which will cause students to need to "rewirte much of the substance and even thnkihng of there essays" in order to approximate SWE.  This objection could be read as making the idea of conferencing -copy editing irrelevant - since students will essentially need to compose a new essay. Elbow claims this is not the case because 1) he is not talking about ESL speakers, 2) anxiety is a significant obstacle in composing, and writing in home dialect can reduce anxiety; 3) the use of a dialect is not necessarily a way of seeing the world (he cites the dismissal of the Sapir-Whorf view of language)- and points out that SWE is not the exclusive owner of academic writing. 

Vanessa questioned whether Elbow's approach -regardless of its intention - continued to overwrite students' home language, and we (sort of) addressed this concern in terms of Elbow's position (stated in the last paragraph).

This issue remains a thorny problem in teaching writing at all levels.

Qualitative methods.
The beginning of our discussion focused on what counts as a qualitative method and what features identify an approach as qualitative.


We noted that defining words for qualitative research included:

• observational, critical, descriptive => representations of individual experiences
• empirical, in the real world, complex, situational
• inductive discovery for focus/theory
• in-depth look at a microcosm

We then discussed how qualitative methods fit into the purposes/practices of the four paradigms (with a side-discussion of what we felt Merton's preferred approaches were).

We wrapped up with some quick-one phrase definitions of the methods Mertons covers in this chapter.

Ethnographic –describe-analyze of social/cultural practices in terms of systematic connections among different components of the system
Case study – study of a bounded system
Phenomenological research- individual-subject's study of (reflection on) unfolding experience
Grounded theory –coding, characterizing, constant comparison of data =theory emerges from data
Participatory research – everyone is a researcher-participant
Clinical research-application of qualitative methods to biomedical problems (we will not deal with it)
Focus group-patterns of interaction within the conversational presentation become part of the data

Evaluation of qualitative studies: Although I discussed features for evaluating qualitative research as part of our discussion of Castillo & Chandler, they really belong here.  Merton's discussion is on p 255.

Credibility (internal validity)=> prolonged persistent engagement, member checks(who has authority to be representative); accounting for/acknowledging what doesn't fit; reflective analysis of researcher's perspective; triangulation

Transferability (external validity); =sufficient detail so readers can guage applicability to other contexts – multiple cases useful

Dependability (reliability)=(the idea that the concept/context understudy will remain the same)=documentation of details

Confirmability(objectivity)= evidence so that data can be tracked to their source=> good fieldnotes/transcripts etc.

Perl

For our discussion of Perl, we started off by making a list of the points from her discussion that absolutely needed to be part of any useful summary of her work. 

Our discussion also considered Perl as an example of grounded theory and case study.  It is an example of grounded theory since the features that are the basis for the patterns and theory she described "emerged" or were "grounded" in her data.  That is, she looked at the talk alouds and the timelines they created, and named what she saw the unskilled writers doing.  She then made a list of all the actions/interactions/etc she had named, and placed them in groupings of similar features.  the names are her "codes" and the groupings are her "categories".  She then looked for patterns in relationships among the codes and catefories.  She connected patterns through correlating them with higher-order patterns in the writing process (planning, drafting, and revising).  Her findings were all about patterns described in terms of relationships within her coded material.

As a case study, Perl examined a small group of writers (a bounded case) and looked for patterns within each case. 

We then reviewed the assignment sheet for the reaction paper, and took a look at the student essay posted for Perl.

I posed thefollowing prompts:

• what does the writer need to add?
• what needs cutting?
• what feednback would you give the writer?
• what grade? (assess the focus, organization, development and depth of analysis)

You noted that this essay was all summary and no response, and that the summary was in many ways too extensive and all over the place in terms of its response.  I agreed. 

The summary in this essay needs to be focused in terms of how the writer plans to respond.  You were fairly generous in terms of grades.  I gave it a "R" : meaning that as it was written it did not meet the demands of the assignment.

Castillo & Chandler
Nikki gave an excellent presentation in a very short time.  She drew our attention to the features of participatory research that contributed to its reliability and credibility,  and asked us to take a critical look at the essay's use of language analysis (and close attention to narrative forms) as a way to discover connections to larger cultural constructs. 

For March 18
Read: review ethnography, case study and phenomenological approaches in Mertens, and read Bartholomae (1983), 523; and Heath (1983) => I am still working on finding the pdf - but it should be in your email by the end of the week.

In class we will discuss ethnography & case study, and work on data analysis for transcripts.

Thank you for your good participation in class, and have a great break.

3.4 Grounded theory & PAR

Sorry this is taking so long - I am working on it.

2.25 Surveys

We had a quick talk-through Mertens chapter on surveys, and as we talked through her points - we reflected on the design of the survey to measure student growth in terms of the learning outcomes posted on the previous blog.

Mertens points out that surveys strengths are that they can handle large #s of responses, and their weakness is that they provide "self reporting" = indirect rather than direct evidence.

She identified 3 kinds of surveys(177), simple descriptive (one shot) cross-sectional (several different groups at one point in time); and longitudinal (one cohort at different points in time).  This seems straight forward enough, but when we tried to classify our study it became confusing because it measure BOTH the same group at several points in time (a cohort of writing majors when they enter and when they graduate the major) - and different groups at several points in time (students entering + exiting the major on a yearly basis).  So perhaps our data is both cross-sectional and longitudinal? And then there is the problem that it is unclear whether we are collecting data on precisely the same group.  So definitions seem so straightforward - but the devil is in the details.

In her discussion of collection methods, Mertons reviews a number of phone, electronic, and f2f approaches - and indicated that usually initial contacts with follow-ups provided the best response.  In terms of our survey = you suggested that there be direct collection (through a student worker present in classes) of data - rather than relying on instructor participation or a request for students to do the survey on their own time.  I think we will follow through on that.

Factors that Mertens identified as affecting response rates included:

• topic salience
• incentives
• length
• and timing of request

For the major survey, the last factor will probably be the most important - as we will make the request when students are in a computer lab and provide class time. 70% is generally the recomended as the acceptable response rate.

We did not discuss sampling plans in depth (183-187) but spent some time on survey instruments in terms of the major survey. Your suggestins included:

• to revise/simplify the response choices
• group questions by headings 
• changing 13 to reflect the standards
• providing pop-ups for technical language or some other means for explaining terms
• revising the directions to set up the survey's purpose more clearly, to increase student engagement, to explain/assure anonymity re the request for the ID
• revise language to reflect students' word choices

This discussion did not touch on many of the concerns raised by Mertens about sensitive questions, requests for different kinds of information, or special types of questions = but we covered a wide range of the kinds of problems that arise when the survey's designers are "different" from survey participants.

The instructions for testing your survey instrument + delivery system, and the questions for critically analyzing survey research will be particularly helpful if you choose to use this method.

Anderson et al
After the break we talked through Anderson et al's essay on Multimodality.
The essay reviewed the uses for surveys in composition studies, described methods for creating a survey for their project, reported their data, and discussed conclusions based on their data. They also   acknowledgd the study's limitations.

As pointed out in class discussion, this survey - and who chose to participate in it- suggests a snapshot of who taught multimodal composing in 2005 (mainly fulltime, tenure-track faculty at universities), how they taught and assessed it (in terms of their own assignments & their own - as opposed to programmatic or disciplinary standards), what kinds of departmental and institutional support these instructors had (pretty good at the level of making computers available - not so great in terms of professional development).  We wondered how accurate this picture was in light of their response rate + distribution (and so did they) - and in some ways the response rate + the profile of responders seems in and of itself suggests something about "what it took" to teach multimodal composing 8 years ago. 

In terms of desiging an online survey - while they outlines a useful process - we agreed that their choice to give such a long survey may have limited the survey's distribution, and in that way - its usefulness.  We observed that a series of shorter sureveys or a tree structure might have helped.

So there was much to think about here.

Royster
Heather's essay sums up Royster's main points and our discussion of her questions at the end of class could have gone on much longer.  She points out three "limitations"of dominant discursive (unconscious) assumptions about voive.  These assumptions deal with who has authority to speak, who has authority to interpret, and what constitutes "authenticity" (or indeed whether authenticity is a useful term).  These are important concepts for teachers to be mindful of as the work the boundaries that define reader-reality-audience-language within student teacher relationships.

We also talked briefly about what kind of 'research' Royster is doing - and how/where it falls within the purview of this course.  Keep that one in mind.

For next week
Read: Ch 8 Mertens = qualitative methods with a focus on grounded theory and participatory research
Perl (1976) p 17, and Castillo & Chandler (pdf)

We will begin with Vanessa's discussion of Elbow and a little more discussion of the "research methods" in these essays on teaching and difference.

Thanks for your good participation tonight - and see you next week.

Writing option student learning outcomes

Student Learning Outcome #1: students will produce essays through a series of drafts that include exploratory writing or talk, as well as revisions that include addition, deletion, substitution and rearrangement.

Student Learning Outcome #2: students will identify central ideas/themes of a text through class discussion and writing.

Student Learning Outcome #3: students will use two or more methodologies from English Studies to develop original research or creative products.

Student Learning Outcome #4: students will demonstrate ability to give a compelling oral presentation.

Student Learning Outcome #5: students will connect ideas from classroom assignments to contemporary issues in class discussion and presentations.

2.11 Finding a research topic and Causal Comparative Research

 Note: Each of you should have received an email from me with one or two suggestions for where to start looking for references for your proposed topics.

Finding a focus for a research project
You started class by discussing possibilities for your thesis projects.  You talked in partners and then we opened up ideas to the whole class.  To the right - I have posted the list of possible topics - with some suggestions for references (I do not guarantee that these are the "best" = but they are a place to start so we have something to build on at your conference.

We then looked through the writing prompts to narrow and focus your topic, and begin to think about how you might actually "do" it.  The questions are listed below. 

What exactly do you want to study with respect to this topic?

What makes this a writing studies project?

What ideas are already "out there" in terms of your idea? (At this point, don't worry about whether what you think is actually true)=> prepare to start checking out references.

What might your study add to the ideas that are already "out there"?

How and where might you gather real world "data" that could add information about your topic?

Make a quick timeline to identify the tasks you would have to accomplish and to set up a schedule for doing your project.

The conference schedule is posted below.
Tuesday, Feb 19:
2:00 Lewis; 4:00 Vanessa

Wednesday, Feb 20
2:00 Nikki, 3:00 Luis; 3:30 Maria

Thursday, Feb 21
12:30 Heather; 2:00 Jay; 3:45 Tobey; 4:00 Marie; 6:00 Rafael

I'm a little worried about Tobey and Marie's schedul (I teach at 4:30 - and between the two of them there is only 45 minutes - but we'll see.  Send me an email if you think you will need more time).

Causal Comparative and Correlational Studies.
We then did a kind of "flyover" of Merten's chapter, with me aspiring to draw attention to the most useful/important points.

Mertons introduces the reason for choosing causal comparative/correlational methosd in her introduction.
When you want to study

• inherent characteristics (that cannot be changed/manipulated)
• characteristics that should not be changed for ethical reasons
• or characteristics that could be manipulated but usually aren't (class assignments, participatory choices etc)

She also points out the difference between causal comparative (which notes whether there are connections between variables) and correlational (which notes HOW MUCH connection there is between variables) studies (152).

We came up with a list of possible comparative studies that included studies of:
Writing practices/achievment by class, economic background

Teacher feedback to gifted vs developmental writersStudent responses to reflecive writig prompts by ageWriting topics of interest (by  gender, class ethnicityLanguage patterns of liars v nonliars

She then pointed out 4 design issues that researchers need to take into consideration if they want to create reliable studies.

1. issues associated with assumptions about group differences (154-5)
2. how you define your group (156-7)
3. issues associated with homogeneity (159 => this includes a discussion of analysis of variance ANOVA as a way to develop more nuanced interpretatios of results)
4. Post hoc fallacy (the mistake of assuming that correlation implies or is coexistent with causality (161-2)
At this point we went back to the list of possible studies, and examined the kinds of issues/problems we might run into in desiging the study of teacher feedback to "gifted" vs. "developmental" writers.  This example made clear the kind of careful thinking and planning that must go into a study if you hope to gather data that can be interpreted in a reliable way.

On the Subjects of Class and Gender in the "Literacy Letters."
We then had a too short to do the essay justice discussion of Linda Brodkey's essay.  I spent some time at the beginning working out what she meant by her statemennts that "we are constituted and unified as subjects in language and discourse" and that "teachers need to learn to read relationships between writer, reader, reality and language," and it seemed to me that we had a good understanding of what she was getting at => that our identities are made out of languge, and that our identities (the Discourse that is an identity) sets us up to say particular things in particular ways.  The notion of "teacher" Discourse and the priviledge and power with respect to being the aribitor of what will and will not be said, (and whether it was said correctly), of monitoring/directing discussion by overseeing turn-taking, choice of subject, the "discourses" that will be respected (or not) and so on. Brodkey's essay explored how teachers in her study remained not only in the "subjects" defined by their profession, but also by their gender and class.  She pointed out the importance of becoming aware that class, gender, and other discourses will BE in the classroom - just as they are everywhere else, and that by virtue of the "teacher" discourse => there will be choices made about what discourses are expected of students which may or may not be justified.

We did not take a close read of the very excellent reation paper for this essay.  It is there for you as a model.

For next class (no class February 18)=> Feb 25 Read:  Mertens, Ch 6: Survey methods; Anderson et al (2006, pdf on Course Blog);  Royster (1996), 555; Elbow (1999), 641 in CT.

I will talk about surveys.  Jay will talk about the Anderson et. al study, and Heather and Vanessa will talk about "writing and difference" by responding to Royster and Elbow, respectively.

2.4 Literature review

Note:  Last week I asked to you do some writing about your research interests (prompts posted to the right), and I said we would start with it this week -but I forgot, and actually that works out just fine.  We will start next week with a discussion of some of the research interests that came up through that writing - and it can lead into a discussion of the Research Proposal. 

Reaction papers.

We started class with a presentation of my reaction paper (more on that after I go over the assignment).  My presentation was certainly a little more "teachy" than yours will be.  The approach you take to your presentations should reflect what you see as important for us to learn from your reading.  The assignments are all far enough ahead so that you should have time to run them by me if you choose.

Reacion papers are due by Saturday morning the Monday before your presentation.  This will allow me to post your paper and give your classmates enough time to read your summary + reaction as a way to help then think abou tthe reading.   The list of readings and presenters is below.  The assignment sheet for the paper + the presentation is posted to the right.

Readings for ENG 5002; Spring 2013

2/4 Berlin (1982), 235 (Chandler)

2/11 Brodkey (1989) p 621 (Chandler)

2/25 Anderson et al (2006, pdf on Course Blog); (Jay)

Royster (1996), 555 (Heather)

Elbow (1999), 641 (Vanessa)

3/4 Perl (1976), 17; (Sally)

Castillo& Chandler (2013), pdf (Nikki)

3/18 Bartholomae (1985),523 (Rafael )

Heath (1983) pdf; (Lewis)

3/25 no presentation

4/1 Hawisher& Selfe (2004), pdf (Tobey)

Brandt, pdf. (Semramis)

Exam I

4/8 Bruffee, 395; Luis

Breuch, 97 Marie

4/15 Selfe& Selfe, 739; (Maria)

Wysocki, 717  Sally

Review of Contemporary Composition: The Major Pedagogical Theories.   I set up my reaction paper by pointing out connections to the discussion of research paradigms discussed by Mertens.  I also pointed out that the essay is a literature review (of sorts) in that it discusses and critiques the major textbooks for teaching writing using each paradigm. As pointed out by Berlin, choosing a text from a particular paradigm is not about emphasizing one element of writing over another - but rather - it is about stepping in to a particular set of assumptions about "the way the world is."

I began with a review of the writer-reality-reader-language relationships for each of the four teaching paradigms: NeoAristotelian or Classisist, Positivist or Current-Traditional, Neo-Platonian or Expressionist, and New Rhetoricial.  After some discussion, I asked you to do some writing to think into teaching practices or assignments associated with each paradigm.  Unfortunately, I did not save this list - but it clearly demonstrated that you are definitely "getting" the features of each paradigm.  We then did some talking about connections between the research paradigm features and the teaching paradigm features.  We correlated the paradigms as follows:

Classicist = I can't remember what we said for this?  Marie and Heather made the point but I can't remember what they said+> was it a connection to the early pragmatists, especially the language philosophers (Peirce) and the assumption that reality must be perceived indirectly and through the social constructst that manifest it - rather than directly? 
Current traditional (post-positivist)
Expressivist = Constructivist (knowledge is assumed to be created within the idividual through the interpretation of larger social constructs)
New Rhetorical -  Transformative (especially when language is assumed as "not neutral")

The idea is not that these are "the right answers" - but that it is important to think about ideological assumptions, and to consider how they shape what we can and cannot see about our teaching and our research,

Literature Reviews:
We spent the rest of class talking about how literature review fits into research methods.  We considered both purposes for doing a research review set up in Mertens: 1) as a method for research in and of itself; 2) to explore and frame a research project. 

I won't dwell on the points of this discussion.  The book is well organized and her presentation is certainly less random that whatever I might write here, but I do want to review some of what we went over in course about strategies for finding sources.
You all know how to use data bases, and how to find the "best (most important)" sources by checking out an edited collection on your topic and then raiding the bibliography.  In addition to these foundational methods, we added these (especially since Mertens methods/lists were more relevant to psychology + education that writing studies:
1.  Check out journals relevant to your field.
http://wpacouncil.org/rcjournals
http://wac.colostate.edu/journals/
Journals on literacy and education

2. Check out web sites of appropriate professional organizations
NCTE  National Council of Teachers of English
CCCC  College Conference on Composition and Communication
IWCA  International Writing Centers Associatiojn
WPA  Writing Program Administrators

3. Cruise bibliographies/reviews compiled in your area of interest
Rebecca Moore Howard's bibliographies

4. Attend professional conferences
See post for Jan 28 = a group will definitely be going to this.

5. Talk to your peers

6.  Search Amazon as if it were you library

7. Use search specialized engines (such as google scholar, comppile)

We then did some writing/talking to think about what you might do for your thesis research - and that was about it.

For next week:
Read: Mertens, CH 5: Causal Comparative and Correlational Research (do not get overwhelmed by the math); Mertens, Appendix: Research Proposals.  CT=> Brodkey, (1989) p 621.
Finish the NIH training and send me a copy of your certificate.

Some of the readings on the list are not yet posted as links.  I will try to have them posted by next week.  If I don't make it - remind me.

Thanks for the good class and see you on Monday.

1.28 Introduction to research methods

Note: The 2013 reaction paper to Berlin (Major Pedagogical Theories) was posted Saturday 2.2 at noon.  If you downloaded an earlier version => update.  The 2013 is very much the same as the 2012 version but there are some changes. 

Purpose of the course

• For developing + understanding research
• Learning uniform way of conducting + presenting research
• Helping students figure out what “paradigm” they are going to use = what your belief system is with respect to doing research
• Who you are as a researcher
• Learning to learn how to find information => distinguishing between academic and not OK sources
• Researching different methods of research
• To personalize what works best for you
• Research information about composition=> learn some more about composition as a discipline
• Understand how to do “appropriate research”
• Lay the groundwork for the thesis

 This list is, in fact, a pretty good match for the course objectives - and for the readings/writing assignments on the calendar.  And that is good.

We then had a perhaps more important discussion, which was about what you want/need out of this course to move successfully through your graduate studies.  That list looked like this:


What you want

Figure out what you want to do your thesis on

Generate ideas for thesisF

Explore the range of possible projects

Do some more exploration of composition studies/writing studies as a discipline

Try out some ideas for a thesis

Learn how to read and write research essays

 

This list indicates that we, as a class, are going to want to spend some time exploring the field and looking for a place that feels interesting enough to write a thesis about in that field, and that we will want to work together to make sure you are "getting" the readings.

The reaction papers should help with that.  I also suggested that you form reading groups (to go over reading assignments in Mertens and Villanueva - together).  This is probably the most painless way to get comfortable in the discipline.  We will do group work and have whole class discussions in class - but reading groups will give you a low stakes place to develop your voice and discover your authority as a compositionist.

Syllabus
You told me what you saw as most important in the syllabus - and from the points you picked out => I was feeling a lot of performance anxiety.   T
The NIH training should be self explanatory. 
You were also interested in the exams. Rafael asked for sample questions - but I am simply going to tell you the focus for each exam, up front so you can think about it all term.  Here is what is important for the exams.  

For the midterm
1. Make sure you understand the axiological, epistemological, ontological and methodological assumptions for the research paradigms outlined by Mertens. 
2.  Think about what pardigm each of the readings from Villanueva fall into . As Mertens points out, they are messy and studies don't always fall clearly into one categorye or another.
3. Think about your own assumptions - and be prepared to explain where you fit as a researcher - and why.

For the final
Think about how & which parts of the theory/practices we have read about you find most relevant to a future as a writing teacher.  Be prepared to outline how you would apply them in your teaching and research - and why. 

Research Paradigms
We spent the rest of class looking at three hypothetical (made up) studies that correspond(roughly) the the assumptions from 3 of Mertens' research models.  We talked about them in terms of what they assumed about what counted as knowledge, what they assumed was "ethical" in terms of relationships to participants and to they ways they produced knowledge, and we discussed what the methods implied about what the researchers assumed about "the way the world is/works".  This discussion was meant to give you some experience connecting your assumptions/beliefs/values to the paradigms described by Mertens - before all the big language was introduced.  The discussion on this raised all the right questions - and indicated how many different perspectives there are on the "right" way to do research.  I though this worked pretty well - though we needed about another 30 minutes (as usual).

For next week:
Read: Ch 1 (what we did in class) and  Ch 3: Literature Review in Mertens;  Berlin (1982), 235 (in CT).
Write:  NIH training

Those of you who are new students, please complete the survey.

Because we didn't get it finished in class - please spend some time on the writing to explore your writing interests. If you write to the first set of prompts (freewriting, drafty, off the top of your head/unedited) we will start class with a discussion of some of what you noticed , followed by some directed writing for the second part. I know it is going to be easy to read through this and think I know what I would put here - but it is important to write it. And use all your self control to keep from editing out the ridiculous suggestions. They are important.

After we do some talking about what you might want to do for your research project, we will talk a little more about research paradigms in light of Chapter 1, and we will go over what she has to say about literature revues.
I will then present a sample reaction paper for the Berlin essay (which is a kind of literature review essay). We will then go over the assignment for reaction paper (posted to the right) and you will sign up for a paper to react to.

We will close class with some focused discussion on literature reviews for your thesis.