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.