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!