5.14 Grades sent

You should have received your gradesheet yesterday, May 13.   If I do not hear from you with revisions, I will post the grades as sent on Monday.

5.11 Last class

We finished class tonight with a discussion of where writing might take us in the future.  Thanks for the thoughtful talk - and best to each one of you as you compose the adventures that will become your life story.  Wow.

Final grades:

Here is the scale we agreed upon:

1. Participation   /150

2. Reaction papers + class discussion (best paper x2)   /100 points

3.  Data analysis group work; in-class work + presentations (if you were present you get the credit)   /100 points

4.  NIH training + IRB application for proposed thesis project (if you turned in the assignment you get credit)   /150 points

5.  Research concept paper +  proposal (if you turned in the proposal, participated in the feedback process, gave your presentation = credit)  200 points

6.  Exams: 2 @ 150 points each    /300 points

I will send you an email with your scores as soon as I finish reading the exams.  You then have a couple of days to get back to me if the grade is not what you expected.  After that, once all is set, I will post the grades to Keanwise.

So - that's about that.  Keep in touch.  And what a great semester this has been for me.  I can't wait to see what comes next.  For all of us, including me!

4.27 New Literacy Narratives talk and presentations on proposals

Thanks for dropping by the Book talk on New Litearcy Narratives from and Urban University, and thanks to Angela, Ryan and Molly for sticking around to provide some comments on their experience writing their chapters.  And thanks to Angela and Ryan for the feedback on research proposals.

Where we are going for the rest of the term:
Before we started on the proposal presentations, we took a look at the schedule for the last two weeks (can you believe it - it's only two more weeks?) and we noted that net week would be to remaining presentations on the proposals + the presentation  and review for the final exam.  We will take stock and decide whether the exam is in class or take home next week.  The last week of class will be devoted to writing the in-class exam, or to some other activity to be decided next week, which may involve ice cream.

Feedback on the final proposal + IRB materials: 
You turned in all the IRB materials this week, and I will have written for you before next class.  I will return your draft proposals to you with comments as they are turned in (hopefully in advance of next week, and keep in mind that on Saturday or Sunday I will be participating in the Great Migration for birds so I will not be reading proposals at that time).

So far so good!

For next week:
Maria, Melissa, and Christina will present on their proposals, and we will review for the exam.

Make sure you have sent me a copy of the proposal for comments so I can get it back to you in time for you to make revisions.

I will return the IRB materials with comments before next class.

Good work in this class and see you next week.

4.20 IRB Workshop

I suggested that you create a IRB account (it takes a couple of days) - just to have it out of the way.  I also posted a sample submission (which has sample answers to questions more in the form of the kinds of answers you will be writing for your applications.

We took a look at the application categories - and then you wrote!

I checked in with each of you (except Maria and she said she was OK), and it looks like you are doing great!

For next week:
Apply for IRB account
Bring me your NIH training certificate
Send me and email with any IRB questions you want answered
Finish writing + email me a copy of your IRB documents: application, informed consent form, debriefing form + a-v consent form

Matt, Andre and Laura will present on their "proposal so far."  => send me a "draft so far" so that your classmates and I can read it.  This is NOT supposed to be the final, polished version.  It is as far as you have gotten, and it is OK if it has parts you have questions about (that is the idea of the preesntation = to get feedback).


For your presentations:
1. Give us an idea of the kind of feedback you are looking for (take a look at the assignment sheet - be as specific as you can in terms of what you are asking for)
then
Provide an overview of your introduction, the literature review, and the methods section.

You may give your presentation section by section (with feedback with each part) - or present the whole proposal at once.

Book presentation.  And - the first part of class will in the Library, Room 108, with refreshments after.  The presentation is from 3:00 - 4:30.  You can come for the presentation - or just show up for the refreshments.   We should probably be back in class some time around 5:00.

4. 13 Discussion of Selfe & Selfe + Keller and plan for work on IRB forms

Tonight's class focused on Selfe & Selfe's paradigm for the analysis of digital interfaces, and Daniel Keller's examination of the kinds and varieties of focus, speed, and depth of analysis we bring to reading (particularly digital) texts.

For Selfe & Selfe, I presented a brief overview of the dimenisons of analysis the essay presents for taking apart the invisible assumptions about audience and purpose which are embedded in digital interfaces.  Rather than repeat their analysis of Microsoft, we used their axes for analysis, and mapped the capitalist & class privilege, discursive privilege, and rational/logocentric privilege in the interfaces associated with our work here at Kean: the KeanGoogle email, Keanwise, and blogger.  We only scratched the surface, but we noted that the kind of information about "use" (in the stats) was more useful to marketers.   Lots to think about here.  We could have spent much longer ont his.

The discussion of Keller (thank you Andre) noted and characterized features of multitasking, foraging, and oscilating as approaches  "reading" - and offered up the important observation that multimodal composing (maybe all composing?) and online reading necessarily demand some level of multitasking.  If this is true, then we need an understanding of multitasking that goes beyond saying it is "not good"- and begins to characterize different styles for attending/reading, and considers their purposes and effectiveness within a range of reading and writing contexts.  Keller points out that in an economics of attention (and the Internet is on that list) require styles for attending which can manage overload tor houg controlling speed/volume of input and depth of reading.  Keller makes a start on these  much needed discussions, and (as a bonus) at the end of the essay, takes apart assumptions both that multitasking is "bad" and that it can become a "hardwired" form of attending.  

For next week:
Spend sufficient time with material at the ORSP links 

• Kean University IRB review information
• Kean University ORSP forms

and the sample forms (listed below)

• Sample A/V Consent form
• Sample Debriefing form
• Sample Expedited Review Application
• Sample Informed Consent

The idea is to come to class ready to work on the IRB application for your proposal.  At the beginning of class, I will go over/answer questions about the required forms (and how to decide which level of review you should apply for), and then you will spend the rest of class working on your applications. During that time we will set up (or take time for) one on one conferences on your proposals, so that you should be well positioned to finish your drafts.  

Bruffee, Pepper and Quantitative methods for writing studies

Much of our discussion of Bruffee  (thank you Andre) centered on whether or not the "conversation of mankind" and the modeling of "normal discourses" were liberatory moves to teach the "discourses of power," or whether they were another version of the educational system's devaluing, and marginalizing students home languages.  We didn't really answer these questions.  We acknowledged that students do come to school to learn skills that will support them in getting a job and getting ahead, and "mainstream" (academic?) discursive forms are one item in that skillset.  We also acknoweldged that it shouldn't necessarily be a given that the University act to perpetuate dominant discourses.

The Pepper discussion was much too short (poor time management on my part),  but Christina got us through the literature review which dealt with definitions and discussions of "cool" and digital rhetoric, and gave us a quick fly over of  the essay's analysis of thetruth.com, a site  that does and does not suggest not smoking.  We discussed how Pepper's essay played with some of the forms it discusses: the way it was organized (reader control of reading=> possibly nonlinear, making use of juxtaposition),  the use of ethos and interactivity; movement between academic and "cool" rhetorical moves (see reading notes in previous post).  Important ideas to take away are the concept of "cool" as rhetoric, what the features of that rhetoric might be, and whether cool rhetoric will (has?) taken root in the University.

Quantitative methods
The rest of the class was devoted to Dr. Sutton's presentation on quantitative research.  You worked through examples from his research on Research Network Forum presenters, and on data on Kean's freshman composition program.  I am hoping you took good notes, and marked down any concepts which might be useful to your research.

On-going work on the research proposal
You should have chosen the essays for the literature review, and should be working on your draft.

On April 21, we will use half of the class time for a workshop.   During this workshop, you will work in groups to make sure you have mapped out a plan to meet the requirements for each of the sections (introduction, literature review, and methods) as set forward on the assignment sheet.  I will be available for you to check in on your choice of essays for the review, and to answer any other questions that come to may mind as a result of the group work.

On April 20, we will go through the directions/writing requirements for creating IRB forms.  We will also schedule conferences for the draft IRB materials + proposals. We will meet sometime between April 20 & April 27.

On April 27, a complete draft of the IRB materials & the proposal is due.

On May 4, drafts will be returned with my comments.

Presentations on the research proposals will be April 27 (3 presenters) and May 4 (3 presenters).
The purpose of these presentations is for you to get feedback from your peers (in addition to the feedback from me at the conference.

Grades for reaction papers
All of you have written at least one of your reaction papers and most of you have written both.  As discussed in class today, I will give you 2x the score for your best reaction essay.  If you want to revise, for a higher score, the revised essay is due by April 27.  Revisions can only raise your score (if the essay, for some reason, earns a lower grade, you will still receive the higher grade).

For next week
Write: Analysis of data set (if we haven't finished it)

Read: Selfe & Selfe, 739 in Villanueva;  Keller (in your email)

In class, if we need to finish up the discussion of the quantitative data, we will do that.  We will also discuss Selfe & Self (Politics of the Interface), and Kellar.

So far so good, and see you next week.

Cool - notes

Quotes (some marked, some not) are from Classical Rhetoric Up in Smoke

Cool
anti-persuasive persuasion
the interface itself

Cultural cool =>history (through 2000)
changes with each generation.
Features: narcissi, ironic detachment, hedonism => private rebellion
"a permanent state of private rebellion" (Poutain + Robins) => rebelling in the right way (Pepper)
both about private self and connecting to a group

Digital cool - discussion of Rice
rhetorical action versus an ideologial stance
coolness based on rhetroical practice (not an identity)
interpretations are open (inferred, rather than "proved"/told or argued): agency in audience
cool strategies: appropriation, juxtaposition, and nonlinearty

Cool ethos - discussion of Liu

Cool, then, is an attitude where attention to choices within a wealth of possibilities, and the self-awareness of that attention, is more valuable and satisfying than any value the information itself may contain. Cool is the paradoxical creation of a difference that makes a difference only by noting how that difference comes into being only because it doesn't really make a difference.
//
Put differently, if information must be defined with the possibility of non-information, cool flips the script and decrees that non-information (lack of making a difference) is the most important difference possible because the individual's awareness of how much it doesn't matter is all that really matters.
//
With all the definitions of "cool" touched upon, we have to ask: How would cool persuasion operate and what is its relation to digital ethos? Is persuasion through cool even possible, or is it doomed to backfire on itself for bothering to care? 

The site: ethos, ethos, ethos (and some pathos)Thetruth.com is all about ethos, but not your Big Daddy A's ethos. They're not going to tell you who they really are, and they're not going to seek traditional credibility. They want to be cool. They're going to change your mind (maybe), but they're going to make you think you made that choice yourself.

 Social cool: the importance of interaction
. . . beyond aesthetics, thetruth has what Wysocki and Jasken (2004) called a "generous interface" (p. 29), meaning the interface offers multiple ways for a visitor to interact with the site and hopefully stay there. 

By encouraging participation (both socially and within the site itself) as a core component of their web place, thetruth ultimately highlights Liu's (2004) notion that "cool is an ethos or 'character' of information—a way or manner of living in the world of information" (p. 184). Information found on the site (or information that visitors post to social media sites) is not nearly as important as the ethos constructed by the site's mere existence and networked place amongst social media. After all, music festivals, video games, and sports interviews have no direct connection to convincing teenagers not to smoke. However, they are identity markers that are frequently discussed and shared across all areas of a typical teenager's world (and tap the hedonistic spirit that cool must emobdy). By focusing on these areas of entertainment, presented in a sleek, modern aesthetic that is familiar and holistic, thetruth commands its viewers to browse its pages and see themselves reflected with each interactive and self-validating click.

About them: Representation of "self"

Despite the focus on popular entertainment and social media, let us not forget that this is actually an advocacy site to discourage teen smoking. 

(conclusion to discussion of graffiti) . . . So not only does graffiti taunt those who can't read it (most often adults), it becomes a stand-in ethos for the artist that is more important than any other aspect of who they are. Digital ethos works similarly. Like graffiti artists leaving behind a tag that signifies them without really identifying them, thetruth has erected this website where their own "About Us" page tells absolutely nothing about who they really are. The entire site operates as their "tag." It's cool, it's anti-conformity, it's rebellious, and it says everything they want you to know about them simply for being there while simultaneously masking anything problematic.

Lousy Logos, the interface as the reason

 "The assumptions behind such advice ground the introduction in the practices of oral and print media. It is assumed the audience will hear or read linearly, and this limits the rhetorical impact of the exordium to making a good first impression" (p. 171). But what if the reader isn't reading linearly? And why should good impressions be limited to the very beginning of a piece that is often long forgotten by the time a reader delves further into an article? Questions like these lead Carnegie to suggest that, though new media has an exordium, it's no longer the literal introduction—it's the interface itself. Carnegie wrote:

Like the warp in a woven fabric, the interface as exordium is ever-present throughout a new media composition. Instead of making a good first impression, the exordium works continually to engage the audience not simply in action but in interaction. As users experience higher levels of interactivity, they experience higher levels of empowerment: they become senders and creators of messages and content. They experience higher levels of control: they choose between options and customize the interface to reflect their tastes, if not interests. (p. 171)

Online Advocacy: Digital cool and actual action (really?) 
Communicative technologies (fueled by digital networks) "fetishize speech, opinion, and participation" (p. 17); however, they do so within an economic climate that values individualism and "me first" greed (the 1980s are, after all, cool again). Thusly, communicative acts online don't spark in-depth discourse so much as they treat communication like an unlimited resource that anyone can create, primarily for the sake of its creation. Once this communication is created, it can be gathered, collected, and the individual can hold stock in it (pun intended). (Pepper)

Does cool work (does it matter)?

maybe a better question is the actual question the essay answers => how does it work?

Ultimately, "does it work?" is probably the wrong question to ask, at least in regards to cool as a rhetorical tactic. Yes, cool persuasion is a deliberate attempt. I think it's clear that thetruth have made many choices in trying to construct the digital ethos of their interface. They are certainly trying to be persuasive, albeit while trying not to look like they're trying. But once the decision is made to bet on cool, the rhetor, and anyone analyzing their intent, can no longer rely on the assessment methods of rhetorical theory historically conceived. As a strong summary of rhetorical theory's intent problem, I quote at length from Thomas Rickert (2013):

Speakers or writers may well understand themselves as working with conscious intent, yet the intention may be casually irrelevant to the effects produced in an audience. Rhetorical theory tends to assume that intent equals result: a rhetor wants to persuade a group of people to vote a certain way, the rhetor succeeds, and therefore the rhetor's intent is held to have been successfully realized through his or her rhetorical art . . . curiously, however, intent is rarely called into question when a rhetorical message goes awry; rather, the issues becomes a matter of technique . . . failure results because one's message was not sufficient for the intent, because one was unprepared for the specific audience, because one made a mistake, and so on. There is no leeway for accidental persuasion, for persuasion at odds with or in spite of intent or even the artistry of rhetorical work. (p. 35)

Cool seems to provide (even account for) this leeway that Rickert was interested in exploring. It's not so simple to ask if cool persuasion "worked." Worked how? Worked in persuading a group of people towards action (like not smoking) or worked in getting them to pay attention to their own attention? Cool doesn't seem to preference one over the other because coming off too adamant about a specific outcome threatens the delicate balance that cool depends on. Is gaining attention enough? Again, this feels like the wrong question. Enough what? These often productive questions betray the obsession with specific intent and conscious outcome that Rickert critiqued. If we suspect cool persuasion doesn't work then, as Rickert suggested, our go-to result/explanation would usually involve questioning the technique used. Although we may question whether or not striving for cool was the best rhetorical decision, any attempt to actually critique whether or not cool itself is effective will be rendered moot by cool's built-in safeguard. Using cool as a persuasive tactic is to say that you ultimately realize you can't control how an audience will react to potentially influential information because that potentiality can only be recognized by an individual's subjectivity. Cool's rhetorical focus is not on providing persuasive information; cool's rhetorical focus is on creating the pleasing condition of information meta-awareness.

3.30 Workshop on research proposals: sign up for conference

Work on research proposals

Review  Research Proposal assignment

Problem statement  (research questions) see p. 115

Literature Review  see p. 117  for rubric, and review Ch. 3 (119-121)

Methods: (review introductory chapter + think back on our discussions of what different methods can and can't do)

Review creating research questions.

Re-visit research interests list and project proposals => in-class work to plan research proposals

Above is a (more or less) frame for what we talked about in class - though what we really did was have "whole class" conferences, where each of you talked through your project and everyone worked together to make sure the project was:

clearly focused
doable (allowed for fine-grained analysis but would not require more time than is realistically available for doing a two-semester thesis)
important/relevant/appropriate for writing studies
connected to the right literature

We didn't really develop too much discussion on the last point, though in our discussion of the literature review we acknowledged that the proposal really needs to discuss in some depth at least 3 sources.  This discussion could serve to describe the "gap" by pointing out how your work will connect to/build /correct on earlier work.  What your study adds may be discussed both/or in terms of content (findings) or methods (think about the claims Perl made for her study).

I backed off on asking you to write a drafty draft for next class, mostly because class discussion seemed to set you up with most of the brainstorming necessary to write a drafty draft, and I don't really feel I need to check in.  At the same time, because we DIDN'T cover the lit review material - I would like to see some evidence that you have an idea which writing studies essays you will need to connect to in your opening discussion (either in terms of defining your method, or in terms of clarifying what your work will add/do).

For next class:

Write: send me a list of the 3 main essays you plan to refer to in your literature review
Read: Bruffee, 395;  Pepper,  http://kairos.technorhetoric.net/18.2/topoi/pepper/index.html

During the first part of class we will discuss the midterms + the readings.  During the second part of class Dr. Sutton will provide some interactive work  on quantitative approaches most often used by writing studies researchers.

3.22 Literacy narrative research and reviewing for the midterm

Brandt. Melissa provided an overview and facilitated discussion of Brandt.  She focused on Lopez and Branch, pointing out how the different positionings of family identity, family support, local resources, and choice/interest  (technology interests v bilingual education) positioned them quite differently in terms of "the same" school sponsors  

Brandt's overall focus was to explore some of the dynamics of sponsorship - how it works in context - and to reveal that sponsorship is not always straightforward or "the same" = both because of individual identity factors and social/economic positioning (stratification); because more than one person is sponsored by individual sponsors and competition among those who are sponsored can affect what benefits they recoup (competition); and because individuals use/re-purpose matierials/skills/opportunities in light of their own lives rather than reproducing the intentions of the sponsor (re-appropriation).

Laura  provided an overview of Hawisher & Self, Pearson & Moraski's co-authored piece on relationships between emerging digital communication technologies and literacies.  Main points/ important terms:

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

5 findnings drawn from analysis of these two narratives (lifted from Laura's reaction paper)

1. Literacies have lifespans

2. As technology continues to develop, people may have increased opportunities for shaping their sense of agency, sometimes by transcending previously-binding socioeconomic factors

3. “Gateways” (schools, workplaces, homes and communities) present important points of entry for digital literacy development.

4.  Access to the technologies which support digital literacy is much more complex than the mere physical opportunity to interact with computers

5.  Literacies are passed not only from parent/grandparents/teachers/older siblings down, but that increasingly young people are passing on these literacies “up” to parents/grandparents/teachers/older siblings

Christina then gave us an overview of the DALN by way of E.Lewis Ulman's essay on the DALN's creation.  We spent the most time on the discussion of the project's relationship to its subjects and "research" - and the resulting problems this (emerging- new) relationship presented to the IRB.  As pointed out in class discussion, oral history has always had a problematic relationship to the "ethics" associated with scientific research. In the end, we noted that it is not surprising that the DALN presented so many problems for IRB concerns, hosting/access, and use; digital technology has presented is a new form for the distribution of personal stories, and that newness presents opportunities - as well as (as Matt put it) = "oh, I didn't think of that" moments which will need to be addressed.

Midterm:

We spent the remainder of class reviewing the assigned readings (up to but not including the assignments on oral history) in light of the midterm.  The purpose of the midterm is to provide you with an opportunity to critically analyze research essays in a way similary to what you will need to do in the literature review for your thesis.  I the literature review for your thesis you will identify research that works well (and characterize its ideological assumptions and the kind of knowledge it will produce + why that knowledge is vaulable) - and point out how you will use that research as a model for your project.  And you will identify research that needs to be extended or added to (that works less well) or which contributes important findings but which could be improved or developed.   

In your midterm, work on creating similar dicussions, the point in dicussing a piece that has shortcomings is not so much to nail it or find fault with it - but to identify how it could be taken further or what modifications could be made to it so that it contributes more detailed or more theoretically significant knowledge.  

For next week:

Read: review the research proposal chapter at the end of Mertens.

Write: midterm

I will return the writing due this week to characterize your proposal and discuss methods you might use (and what you might discover from each method), probably right before class next week.  We will spend class talking through the purpose and form for a research proposal, and get you started on drafting this assignment.

See you next week!

3.9 Analyzing transcripts, Bartholomae & Heath

We started class with some analysis of the "returing adult learner" transcript (posted to the right).  You all knew she was female, and an older adult learner, partly based on the content, but also because of the way she used language.  As a  "typical" returning adult student, she had an agenda for what she wanted to learn and how she wanted to learn it, and she took some initiative in pursuing it.  Some of the gendered features of the talk which you identified were the use of hedges, the interconnected, collaborative ways the two speakers' language fit together (picking up on one another's terms),  finishing each other's questions/answers without direct prompts - all of which the research literature has noted as often associated with female speakers.

Our discussion led us almost immediately into the observation that language features can imply more than one thing. For example, the short answers + seeming evasion of "I guess" and the apparently not fully considered "agreement" with Ch's "saying back could be interpreted as M's lack of investment in the interview.  Yet, taken in light of her openness about being afraid, and the closing (unprompted) addition at the end of Excerpt 1, where M comes up with an answer to a question she at first was not sure how to answer (where she says "I was resisting it") suggests those same language features might also be interpreted as processing, or not having language ready to answer the questions Ch has asked.

This led to discussion of the different kinds of stories which can come up in interviews, John Wayne stories (where the narrator is in control, has things worked out = the dominant discourse in middle class, white, college student talk from the study I mentioned in class), Florence Nightengale stories (where the narrator is useful/helpful = another "tellable" story form comment in that same study), springboard stories, and so on.  In addition to being able to recognize stories which are in the subject's repertoire (and which signal the fact that they have probably been told before), interviewers need to recongnize features of "untellable" stories = material that the narrator does not know what to think about and hasn't processed into a tell-able unit like a story.  I suggested that language features and interactions in Excerpt 1 suggest we were talking about material which the subject had not yet processed.

In the second excerpt, you pointed out stories, and noted they were generally, if not quite JW stories, at least they presented circumstances where things worked out and there was learning/resolution.  You also noted the many things noted here on the board, in Andre's photo.

Good start on this!  There is lots of material on doing conversation/story analysis - and it is a versatile tool for working in writing studies research.


Bartholomae
We started the Bartolomae discussion by identifying the features of academic discourse(s),

features of academic discourse

• words phrases signify certain expected moves (use academic voice)
• organization = deductive, logical (generally not narrative)
• authoritative stance ( mastery over material) but not authoritarian
• provide evidence => research based
• presented as a conversations with other researchers/writers/texts
• based on experience, though not necessarly your particular experience unless = theorized and supported by scholarship/examples/other evidence
• values abstract/generalized/theorized statements (over personal particular, though values particular materials as support/evidence for theorized points)
• demands that the author contribute some nontrivial insight to the conversation (say something new)
• expects the author to take some risks

. . . and along with Maria's excellent discussion of Bartholmae's main points, you looked at the sample texts in the essay as a way to check in on our list of the discursive features of academic writing.  As Maria pointed out, correctness (the fallback position for what many composition classes teach) is NOT the most important feature of academic writing.

Heath
Matt's 7 minute presentation masterfully presented to main points of Heath's essay: its purpose was to deconstruct the orality-literacy dichotomy which named literate "thinking" as superior to the knowledge-making/thinking of orality; it identified literacy and orality not as separate but as interconnected through what she named as "literacy events"; it provided rich, grounded examples of the different kinds of relationships between literacy and orality within particular cultural events, and showed how access to and power over literacy was constructed through discursive moves invested with power and characteristic to particular contexts (this is the example where the bank/employers kept control over documents which participants did not have the discursive moves to demand posession of).  These findings were revolutionary in their time, and changed the way language philosophers, writing teachers, linguists and others think about the role of writing and how it "works" within our lives.

Summing up and reflecting on qualitative methods.
So, yes, we again degnerated to "lightning round" presentation at the end of class, and did not have time for us to spend some time reflecting on the qualitative methods, together, so I have asked you to do some writing about how you might use some of these methods in what you now perceive as your proposed thesis project (see detailed description of this writing below).

For next class:
Read:  Mertens, Ch 9 History and Narrative Study of Lives;  Hawisher & Selfe (2004), pdf; Brandt, pdf; H.Lewis Ulman, “A Brief introduction to the DALN” http://ccdigitalpress.org/stories/chapters/introduction/

and check out the DALN (http://dalnresources.org.ohio-state.edu/contents.html + check out the HOME + selected Literacy Narratives TBA (your choice, Christina)

Write:   Create + email me a document which contains:
1. A one or two sentence statement of the purpose of your study (what you will do + why).
2. A statement of the primary methods you expect to use + what kind of data you expect to gather through the use of each method.
3. What questions each kind of data will answer relevant to your project.

If this listing already includes several methods from the qualitative methods list in Mertens - you are done!  If not, speculate about how you might supplement/enrich your data (and what you might find) through the use of one or more of the methods from the qualitative methods chapter.

In class, we will spend the first half discussing the oral history/live narrative studies; during the second half we talk about your plans for choice of methods for your research proposal (very briefly- since this will be the primary focus of class on March 30 - this discussion will mostly be to check in for questions + set up for work on the proposal) and review for the Midterm.  I will sum up the readings so far in terms of their content, methods, paradimatic assumptions, importance to writing studies, and we will talk through the Midterm exam.

3.3 In-class work on analyzing a transcript

We started by looking at a "raw" transcript from an interview produced for the New Literacies book co-authored with Kean University students.

This material was produced using the an interview protocol derived from the protocol Haiwisher & Selfe used for Literate Lives from the Information Age. We took a minute to look at how this protocol was built, and noticed that:

• There was a statement of purpose at the beginning, so the participant has a written statement indicating the focus of the interview and how the data will be used.
• Easy, orienting questions were first
• (After the orienting questions - many interviews include a general, overview question, which allows the participant to introduce/set up material which THEY feel is important or central to what they want to say BEFORE the interviewer limits their opportunities to say these things by asking directed questions.)
• Most of the questions are open.  Yes/No questions have follow-up tags to open up the discussion.
• The protocol is organized in sections which ask parallel questions grounded in different times and places from the participant's life.  This allows the participant multiple ways to associate to material central to the interview's purpose.  Fits with the way memory works.

We also, briefly, discussed how the researcher's orientation to interviewing will shape the way the interview goes.  If you view the participant as a "container" with information you want to extract - you will get one kind of a "window" on who s/he is and what s/he thinks.  If you engage your participant in a conversation where you explore the material together, you will get a different kind of data.  Both kinds of data are valuable - but will need to be interpreted differently.

Analyzing the transcript
After reading the transcript, we started by naming some of the "moves" and noticing the contexts where they occurred (use of you know + like + laughter as indication of comfort, use of hedges as  being on guard, changing/taking control of the subject . . .)
We noticed the "stories" L told, including the prompts/material that set them up, and the form of the stories she told.
We noted that, in general, L told stories which resolved into positive conclusions
We noted the "valence" (how or whether each story was associated to either positive or negative emotions.)
We identified themes for each of the stories, and thought about how (or whether the stories fit together).
Although we didn't get to much time for this part, (and we in fact needed some more time to look at the transcript before moving to this step, but we ran out of time) we started asking questions about what the way L was telling her stories suggested about her relationship to literacy and the different connections (to friends, school, family) that were impacted by the way literacy was valued and taught in her home and school.

I gave you two handouts which proposed different ways to categorize/organize this section of transcript for the purpose of thinking about how the stories worked.  We didn't have much time to talk about them - but I am hoping what they show is kind of evident.

For next class:
Review Mertens Chapter 8 with attention to ethnography.
Read: Bartholomae + Heath
Write:  Using the patterns for analyzing the transcript which we started on in class, develop an analysis of the Returning adult learner transcript posted to the right.

For your analysis of the transcript, you might want to use this list of suggestions for how to interpret certain patterns in language use (these features "mean" differently for different speakers - so use them tentatively).

As you work through the transcript, list and interpret the following:
any features you have identified (named)
Any patterns, repetitions, omissions, incongruences that you notice in the talk in the transcript
a description of what you see as characteristic interactions (exchanges  where M and Ch speak back and forth); important interactions
any "turning points" where either speaker changes her mind  (explore describe)
significant language features (see list)
stories (note their context, focus,  form, purpose, etc)

Come to class with the above list & interpretations.  During the first part of class, you will work with a group to come up with an interpretation of your analysis which sheds light on the values, beliefs, identities etc that are embedded in these conversations.

3.3 Qualitative methods

Catch up (retro-active teaching based on what has been turned in).

Reaction essays:  At te beginning of class I give a short overview of features characterisitic of reaction paperst in light of what I have read so far.  I pointed out that the moves/form for this genre vary with audience and purpose, and that reaction essays are related to short reviews and the kind of peer review offered when writing is vetted for publication.  The overall organizationof the essay is to place the essay in context (what was its audience purpose),introduce the main points & set up your treaction in the first paragraph, pretty much in that order. In other words, don't start right in with the point by point analysis of what the essay says => make that academic move where you set up the overview for the essay.

In the next section/paragraph, review the essay's connections to other research, its methods, and findings, usually in that order. If it is "research" essay (rather than a "personal" essay= like Royster or Bartholomae or Elbow) the essay will generally be written in that order.  Don't spend inordinate time on the methods unless: there is some important point about method which you want to come back to (eg in Anderson et al, you might want to mention the recruitment methods, length and distriubtion= since these points may be necessary info for a critique centered on the small sample); or development of the method is part of the point of the essay(as in Perl).  Sum up the findings in a way which sets up your reaction (you generally will not be able to cover everything ) =so it is a focused summary.

In the next section - develop your reaction.  For this assignment you will present a critique which considers the essay within the body of composition research, and which analyzes the researchers' assumptions (the essay's paradigm) and discusses  the consequences of those discussions.  This may take one or more paragraphs.

We talked briefly about presenting the WHOLE discussion of the essay, followed by your analysis; versus a point by point analysis, your you present points from the findings, followed by critique.  This choice will depend on the complexity of the material => choose what makes the easiest read.  For this assignment, finish with a discussion of connection to the literature + critique, and discussion of paradigm + critique.    The organization here, again, is your call.

Overall suggestion based on what I have read so far is to sharpen the summaries (not just shorten => edit to make more economic, therefore shorter but with lots of specific content), and develop the critique/reaction section.

Great work so far.

Concept papers:
Discussion in class focused generally on the overall organization for a research proposal (in detail in your textbook).  With an emphasis on the organization of the set up.  We looked briefly (everything in class tonight was brief, right?) at John Swales Creating a Research Space, where he describes the moves researchers make in the set up for writing studies essays.  I think it is pretty self explanatory => the key point is that you need to provide context for your project - as well as an explanation of why the project is important - before moving into the details.

The organization for your proposal will be:
Introduction: where you provide context + description of niche + discussion of why your project is important.  You will use general connections to what other researchers have done to describe the context as well as your niche.  There are several theories on how this intro connects to the literature review, and we will discuss them as we move through the course.

Literature review: discussion of important work in terms of how you will use it /respond to it in your research. For example, you might discuss one essay for the purpose of describing your methods (as derived from what another researcher has done), another to point out how you are using a different method to answer a related/similar question;  and you might dicuss a third essay do present the main findings relevant to your research questions.   In general, for a proposal you will need some familiarity with at least 10 references, and in-depth knowledge of 3-5 essays.  You will use a discussion of these essays to define your question, your methods, and your niche.

Methods:  In this section you outline, in detail, how you will conduct your study.

As I said, we will be working on the form and content for these sections throughout the term.

Reaction discussions:   Thank you Matt & Laura.  Great job on these.  Papers posted to the right

Discussion of Qualitative methods.

References for qualitiative methods:  Posted to the right is a  (partial) list of references for qualitative methods.   Because Mertens covers a broad range of qualitative approaches, there was not much room for the"how to" - practical descriptions of what you actually do in the process of collecting and analyzing data. The purpose of the reference list is to give you some places to start.  This list clearly has gaps - but it provides some widely used handbooks and theories for language analysis, interviewing, ethnographic methods, narrative analysis and taking a new literacies approach.

Defining qualitative research:
We started our discussion by talking about the list of key words associated with qualitative research in Mertens.

• associated wordes (from Mertens): complexity, contextual, exploration, discovery, inductive logic

This list makes it clear that qualitative research focuses on describing, characterizing in detail = and focuses on "qualities" which do not easily reduce to numbers. It is not thesis driven (the ideas emerge from the data) and it generally starts with questions, rather than assumptions about what we already know.

Some "problems" qualitative research is good for:

When the researcher does not have a thesis - for open problems

When the researcher is confronted with a "messy" problem with lots of features that do not fall clearly into categories

When exploration of context (as in social construction, phenomenology) is important

When the study needs/demands unconstrained (i.e. not already framed by the researcher) input for research participants (as in transformative research)

Paradigmatic assumptions and qualitative research. We then took a quick look at the different qualitative approaches listed in the chapter, mostly to note that Post-positivist is missing from the list.  

Overview of qualitative methods, short definitions.

Ethnographic –characterized by the purpose of the research (to understand/represent a worldview from the insiders' perspective; 

methods for data collection: participant observation, interviewing, 

methods for data analysis:

grounded theory, discourse analysis, conversation analysis, narrative analysis, visual analyisis etc => where analysis means breaking a system into parts, naming and classifying  (categorizing) those parts, noticing patterns within the relationships among parts, hypothesizing and testing local/partial theories about how the parts work together

The focus is generally cultural, and often requires the ethnographer to "correct" for his or her own assumptions about how cultures "are" (so that s/he can "see' the culture of the Other more "as it is" than as s/he imagines it).

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 - one purpose is to make research valuable to the participants

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.

Terms for assessing qualitative research (as opposed to quantitative research) 

We did not go over these in class, but - as you design your research -the different systems for assessing qualitative v quantitative research are important considerations.

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.

This is so long I am going to make it two posts.

2.23 Surveys and First Person essays

We started class by reviewing the general focus fset up inyour thesis concept papers (listed below).

Melissa - new literacies for creative writing

Maria - autoethnography - issues for multilingual speakers and composing

Matt - something about video gaming and teaching writing (?)

Andre - code-meshing and comics/ discourse + identity

Laura - habits for composing (in terms of technologies), testing and assessment of writing 'level' for middle school writers

Christina - high school students, response to literary texts in terms of how those texts are written

After checking in to make sure I had the right focus for your topics, I suggested some books from writing studies that might be useful (by topic). You are welcome to browse through what was offered (some are foundational work, some not so much - use your judgment), and if you come across a reference that the library doesn't have - you might want to ask me if I've got it.

Melissa presented on Anderson et al's survey on who was teaching multimodal composing back in 2005 (and what they taught when they taught it). She asked us to rate our technology skills back in 2005 - which led to comments and reflections which raised issues about the self-assessment features inherent to surveys! We hit the study's main conclusions (but did not spend much time on study design or the findings from individual categories - so check back through these so you are familiar with them) and briefly considered the paradigm (pragmatic). Most of the discussion focused on how/whether leaving the term "multimodality" open shaped the study, and whether attitudes/practices associated with teaching multimodal composing have changed since 2005. In response to the first question, the class seemed to feel that leaving the term open was appropriate for this investigation in that it made room for an inclusive definition of what was an emerging term, and that it helped to open up (bring in more information) through the survey form.

After we discussing Melissa's reaction paper, we checked back with Mertens and considered points she raised about the when/why to choose a survey as a research toold, as well as discussions about selection of participants, the distribution plan, and the design of the survey instrument. The sections on the importance of piloting surveys (and interpreting the results of the pilot by revising the instrument, distribution methods etc) and on thinking about low response rates were relevant to our discussion of Anderson et al.

We spent some time discussing Royster (thank you, Maria - the essay is posted to the right). Royster's essay points out three "limitations"of dominant discourse tends to place on subjects who are "others": denial of the authority to speak, of authority to interpret, and  of the ability to code-switch (step into multiplie subject positions and be read as "authentic" in all positions).  These are important tendencies within dominant discourse for teachers to be mindful of as the work the boundaries that define reader-reality-audience-language within student teacher relationships.

Brief discussion of Elbow = see reaction paper to right.

For next class:
Read: Perl (Matt); Castillo + Chandler (Laura)


I will have comments to you on your concept papers by next class.  If you have not turned in an electronic copy (by email) do so ASAP.  

2.9 Reaction papers, and research using literature review and comparision

We did a lot of catching up and getting things in order in this class - and I think we are now "set" in terms of being in sync with the calendar.

Some things to catch up on:
If you have not sent your NIH certification, send it by 2/16.

Note your time for a conference on the concept writing for your thesis project.
The concept paper (see 451 in Mertens) the statement of your "idea" for your thesis research, plus some indication of the research that is out there that you plan to read, along with some discussion of your plan for how to conduct your research.  This should be about a page or two when it is finished.  The purpose of writing it is so that you have some language to talk about what you want to do with the person you want to recruit for your advisor.  During our conference we will talk about and "draft" writing that you bring,  spend some time on what you might want to read, and do a little talking about what methods you might want to use.  The idea of the conference is for you to get a chance to try out your ideas before writing them down.

Here is the conference schedule:

February 16 (President's day, at Rockin' Joes by the Union train station): Christina 4:00 pm; Melissa 4:30 pm; Maria 5:00 pm; Laura 5:30 pm
February 17:  André 1:00 pm
February 18: Matt 4:30 pm

Make sure you know when you are on the calendar for your reaction paper.
You each signed up for 2 reaction papers (here is the link).  We agreed that you would email your reaction paper to everyone in class, and me, on the Sunday night before the class when you do your presentation.  I have sent you an email which cc's everyone in class - so if you reply all to that email with your attached paper - we should be good.

How we will use Mertens.
As noted in class, we will use the reaction papers as examples of the research methods we are reading about in Mertens.  Reading Mertens will give you some detailed information about nuts and bolts of using the different methods; the reading are examples of those methods in action.  Generally, I will give a brief presentation on the methods reading (Mertens) and then we will talke about the research reading in light of Mertens.  If you have questions about Mertens - especially if this is a method you are considering using - bring it up in class. In general I will only talk to the overal points, and the questions you ask.  We are using Mertens like a manual of directions.  They are step by step.  I will not talk through the steps unless there is a problem or questions.

What should be included in a reaction paper?
We began by reviewing the assignment sheet (posted to the right) and then used our discussion of Berlin as a "model" for what to put in the written paper, and how to present the essay you are responsible for discussing.

You are not expected to use a powerpoint or and A/V -though for the DALN presentation you might want classmates to click through the site, and for any esssy you should expect that your classmates have a copy of the essay you are discussing availble/open.

Model presentation.  In my presentation of the reaction paper on Berlin, I wrote key terms on the board, and defined them. I referred to page numbers in the essay and read passages central to the author's supporting points/development, and I asked questions (to engage the class in supplying information from the reading) - though I didn't do this very successfully.  If your presentation is more interactive - that is great.  I was worried about time so I kind of rushed us through the points.

After discussing the content of the essay, I talked about the assumptions underlying both the essay's content, and its rhetorical moves (the logical/structural organization of the argument it makes) and questioned/considered which research paradigm this essay seems to draw from.

I then read from the section of the paper to present a "critique" of how Berlin makes his points, and to place the essay within the history of writing studies/composition research. I also related Berlin's paper to the method we were discussing.  At the end I attempted some discussion of the questions posed as part of the reaction paper (though in some sense we'd covered lots of those ideas).

So you may have noticed that this presentation used the board, reading sections from Berlin and from the reaction paper, and discussion.   You can use any or all of these approaches - focusing on what makes you comfortable.  I am hoping you do better at getting a conversation going than I  did.

I am not going to go over the main points in Berlin, as I feel the paper does a pretty good job of that, and we did pretty well covering the material in class.

Brodkey. The last part of class was devoted to mapping out a reaction to Brodkey.  We didn't get very far into that, but I think what we did talk about was important.  Her focus was on how discourses for class and gender structure the ways teachers interact with their students - and she suggests that sometimes these discourses can preserve "authority" in places where it is not constructive to do so.  I have posted a sample reaction paper for Brodkey which I strongly recommend reading.

If the concept of "discourse" is new to you, this link might be helpful.  Students who come up through Kean's writing major have spent some time defining + analyzing discourse, so that is why I haven't spent time on it here.

For next class (Feb 23)

Read: Mertens, Ch 6: Survey methods; Anderson et al (2006, pdf on Course Blog) - Melissa;  Royster (1996) Maria, 555; Elbow (1999), 641  Sally  in CT.

Write: Concept paper (and attend conference)

Have a good break, and see you at your conferences.

Literature review resources

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 
e.g Rebecca Moore Howard's bibliographies

4. Attend professional conferences

5. Talk to your peers

6.  Search Amazon as if it were you library

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