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
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
2/11 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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment