Monday, February 23, 2015
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.
Tuesday, February 10, 2015
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)
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.
Monday, February 9, 2015
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)
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)
Monday, February 2, 2015
2.2 Introductions, methodologies, planning the rest of the term
Note: I have posted a DIFFERENT sample reaction paper for Berlin's essay on The Major Pedagogical Theories (one which actually corresponds to the essay you read). Sorry for the confusion and thanks to Laura for pointing out my mistake.
The plan for the class was to:
go over the syllabus + calendar
talk about readings for the course and how we will talk about them
talk about NIH training
do some talking to identify research interests
learn some of the language writing studies researchers use to talk about/characterize the different approaches to research (with a focus on Mertens' chart of different approaches to research on p.11)
We sort of did that. As usual.
New student survey: For those of you who have not yet turned in the new student survey (discussed in class, here is the correct link. (The link on the calendar is the wrong one. Oops)
Course description
The discussion of the syllabus and calendar was about giving you a feel for how the course will go: what you will learn, what is required of you, and how your work will be evaluated.
Research methods and their application: The focus is on research methods used in writing studies, and this focus is realized through expository writing about the methods themselves (Mertens), and reading hallmark essays which illustrate the use of those methods. in general I will assign the Mertens chapters, and unless you have specific questions about here presentation there will not be much class time spent going over her chapters. Rather, we will focus on the applications of the method under discussion in our analysis and critique of the theoretical readings paired with the methods chapters. In some cases, we will "put into action" some of the concepts/methods presented in Mertons through application of the methods to data sets or hypotehtical research contexts.
Reaction papers: As pointed out in the syllabus - the course will primarily be conducted as a seminar, where our exploration of material is interactive and conversation based. If there are terms in the readings (either from Mertens or Villanueva & Arola) which you need more talking time to "unpack" or get practice using - bring them up and we will spend some time on them. Otherwise, I will assume you are good with the level of attention I have planned. In our next class I will model an approximation (with room for critique) of what I will be expecting in terms of a reaction paper and facilitation of discussion. Your responsibility as nonleaders in this dicussion is to:
There will not be "correct" answers within these discussions; rather what is important is to consider how supportable/powerful/ useful different answers are, and to reflect on the contexts/assumptions that would make them seem "right".
NIH training
We checked out the link to the side, and talked through the importance of training and IRB review. The assignment sheet has all the details (posted to the right). If you have questions, raise them in class. NIH certificates are due by the beginning of class, February 16.
Finding a focus for a thesis project.
We then spent some time talking about our different research interests. We will be talking and writing about "what you might do research on" and how you might do it for the rest of the semester. This initial talk was so I could get an idea of the direction you might want to go - and so you could hear yourself think. Lots of big ideas here - good stuff!
The idea here is that you will work on developing a proposal for your thesis research as a way to think about the methods we study, the history of research we will study, and the ideas we engage (for example - thinking about how the kinds of questions we ask - and the assumptions we make - shape what it is possible for us to 'discover') through out the course. So whether or not you actually do your thesis on the topic you explore this term - your topic will serve as a "center of focus" so you can apply and deepen your understanding of the material we cover.
Axiologies, Ontologies, Epistemologies and what?
We spent the rest of class wading into the jargon associated with writing studies research. We explored the different methodologies identified by Mertens through making a list of different ways to study writing process. Our list included the following approaches (methods)
survey/questionnaire
observation of writers
interviews
focus groups
self reports
analyze writing (artifacts)
literature review
reflective reconstructions by writers
As we reviewed these approaches, we noted that embedded in these methods were differences in the assumptions about the "right" way to make knowledge, or even what constituted knowledge. For example, a survey (particularly a survey which solicits multiple choice, 1-5, scaled answers to carefully framed questions designed to provide "the same' experience for each participant, and using "neutral/universal" language so that the answers will be interpretable within the frame designed by the researcher) assumes that it is possible to design questions which will affect participants and reliably elicit the anticipated kinds of information, and that that information will provide a picture of the "facts" with respect to the subject under exploration. And in some cases and to some degree, surveys can do such things. At the same time, what if the survey designer omits a critical factor relevant to what subjects have to say? In the case of a survey on writing process, if there are lots of questions about what subjects do, but few about how the "feel" and whether those feelings affect what they do - then the study WILL provide information about writing process - but it won't provide information about anything the researcher has not thought to ask the subjects about. There is no room for subjects to tell researchers something important to their composing process that is not in the survey. (Have you ever taken a survey where the questions are just not letting you say what you ahve to say about the focus of the survey?)
So in some ways surveys sacrifice access to certain kinds of knowledge and knowledge making, and privelege other. From my perspective, all methods are the same in this way.
We then talked about assumptions/beliefs about how knowledge is made and what it is. These are our epistemologies = our theories of knowledge.
knowledge is something real that is "out there" and it can be discovererd
knowing is complex, multifaceted - and while there is something that is out there - it is only through the operations of the mind (conceptualization) that it can be known
knowledge is dynamic, interactive and dependent on the experience/position of the observer
knowledge is dynamic, and researchers can choose to invest in a particular perspective
The epistemologies stated here roughly correspond to the epistemologies listed with the research paradigms listed in Mertens' chart.
We then had a somewhat broad-ranging discussion of axiologies = what constitutes "good" and valuable research (ethics). We will pick up on and continue with this for the rest of the term. Keep thinking about your own assumptions about what comprises ethical research, and remember that in our Western culture, we are steeped in the assumptions of the positivist model associated with medical science. So even if you come back to the values listed in the positivist model, spend some time taking them apart, stepping back from them, and thinking about the kinds of community and relationships the different axiologies create.
The perspectives outlined by Mertens included:
postpositivists
social constructivists
transformative researchers
pragmatist
We re-capped these in light of our discussion of the different axiologies, ontologies, epistemologies and methods we discussed, and that was the introduction to this list of big words that we will be working on using to talk about what we do for the rest of the term.
One of the readings for next week is Introduction to the history of composition by James Berlin. Since this essay was written in 1982, obviously this vision of contemporary composition is no longer contemporary. At the same time, it is an important document in the history of writing studies and Berlin's work was foundational in identify features of different approaches to teaching writing that evolved with the development of the discipline. This review of rhetorics and teaching practices used in writing classrooms beginning with Campbell's Philosophy of Rhetoric (1776) names a series of approaches (characterized by epistemology + practices) including: Positivist or Current Traditional, Expressivist, Neo-Platonic, Neo-Aristotelean, and New Rhetoric approaches. As you read this essay, spend some time identifying the assumptions associated with each approach, think about whether/how Berlin's New Rhetoric might hold up in light of the changes in text/composing/and audience/reader relationships brought about through digital technologies, and think about what YOU think about "best practices" for teaching writing in your classroom(s) (in otherwords - think about your assumptions and your students' expectations/writing 'needs').
For next week:
Read: Mertens - review Chapter 1 (we covered this in detail in class) and Chapter 3; also read Chapter 5. Read Chapter 3 and 5 with a mind to noticing (and asking questions about) what you might need to know if you chose to use these methods.
Villanueva& Arola - Berlin (p. 235) and Brodkey (622) and the reaction to Berlin (posted under Reaction Papers, to the right).
Write: work on the NIH training, do some writing for yourself about what you might want to do for your research project
You will notice that Berlin is a literature review, and Brodkey is a comparative study, so we are reading examples of the two methods from Mertens.
In class, I will model the presentation of the reaction paper on Berlin, and then we will, as a class and using the Reaction paper assignment sheet, construct a reaction paper for Brodkey.
We will also read through the list of readings and each of you will choose the two papers you would like to react to, and you will get started on drafting a concept paper for a research project.
We've had a rough start with the bad weather, but I think we should be on track by the end of next class. Have a good week and be in touch if you have questions.
The plan for the class was to:
We sort of did that. As usual.
New student survey: For those of you who have not yet turned in the new student survey (discussed in class, here is the correct link. (The link on the calendar is the wrong one. Oops)
Course description
The discussion of the syllabus and calendar was about giving you a feel for how the course will go: what you will learn, what is required of you, and how your work will be evaluated.
Research methods and their application: The focus is on research methods used in writing studies, and this focus is realized through expository writing about the methods themselves (Mertens), and reading hallmark essays which illustrate the use of those methods. in general I will assign the Mertens chapters, and unless you have specific questions about here presentation there will not be much class time spent going over her chapters. Rather, we will focus on the applications of the method under discussion in our analysis and critique of the theoretical readings paired with the methods chapters. In some cases, we will "put into action" some of the concepts/methods presented in Mertons through application of the methods to data sets or hypotehtical research contexts.
Reaction papers: As pointed out in the syllabus - the course will primarily be conducted as a seminar, where our exploration of material is interactive and conversation based. If there are terms in the readings (either from Mertens or Villanueva & Arola) which you need more talking time to "unpack" or get practice using - bring them up and we will spend some time on them. Otherwise, I will assume you are good with the level of attention I have planned. In our next class I will model an approximation (with room for critique) of what I will be expecting in terms of a reaction paper and facilitation of discussion. Your responsibility as nonleaders in this dicussion is to:
- identify concepts and vocabulary ( central to the text's point) which you have questions about;
- identify (think about) the research paradigm each essay develops from within;
- critique/validate the logic/conclusions central to the essay;
- raise points you want to extend/apply to other contexts/aspects in writing studies.
There will not be "correct" answers within these discussions; rather what is important is to consider how supportable/powerful/ useful different answers are, and to reflect on the contexts/assumptions that would make them seem "right".
NIH training
We checked out the link to the side, and talked through the importance of training and IRB review. The assignment sheet has all the details (posted to the right). If you have questions, raise them in class. NIH certificates are due by the beginning of class, February 16.
Finding a focus for a thesis project.
We then spent some time talking about our different research interests. We will be talking and writing about "what you might do research on" and how you might do it for the rest of the semester. This initial talk was so I could get an idea of the direction you might want to go - and so you could hear yourself think. Lots of big ideas here - good stuff!
The idea here is that you will work on developing a proposal for your thesis research as a way to think about the methods we study, the history of research we will study, and the ideas we engage (for example - thinking about how the kinds of questions we ask - and the assumptions we make - shape what it is possible for us to 'discover') through out the course. So whether or not you actually do your thesis on the topic you explore this term - your topic will serve as a "center of focus" so you can apply and deepen your understanding of the material we cover.
Axiologies, Ontologies, Epistemologies and what?
We spent the rest of class wading into the jargon associated with writing studies research. We explored the different methodologies identified by Mertens through making a list of different ways to study writing process. Our list included the following approaches (methods)
survey/questionnaire
observation of writers
interviews
focus groups
self reports
analyze writing (artifacts)
literature review
reflective reconstructions by writers
As we reviewed these approaches, we noted that embedded in these methods were differences in the assumptions about the "right" way to make knowledge, or even what constituted knowledge. For example, a survey (particularly a survey which solicits multiple choice, 1-5, scaled answers to carefully framed questions designed to provide "the same' experience for each participant, and using "neutral/universal" language so that the answers will be interpretable within the frame designed by the researcher) assumes that it is possible to design questions which will affect participants and reliably elicit the anticipated kinds of information, and that that information will provide a picture of the "facts" with respect to the subject under exploration. And in some cases and to some degree, surveys can do such things. At the same time, what if the survey designer omits a critical factor relevant to what subjects have to say? In the case of a survey on writing process, if there are lots of questions about what subjects do, but few about how the "feel" and whether those feelings affect what they do - then the study WILL provide information about writing process - but it won't provide information about anything the researcher has not thought to ask the subjects about. There is no room for subjects to tell researchers something important to their composing process that is not in the survey. (Have you ever taken a survey where the questions are just not letting you say what you ahve to say about the focus of the survey?)
So in some ways surveys sacrifice access to certain kinds of knowledge and knowledge making, and privelege other. From my perspective, all methods are the same in this way.
We then talked about assumptions/beliefs about how knowledge is made and what it is. These are our epistemologies = our theories of knowledge.
knowledge is something real that is "out there" and it can be discovererd
knowing is complex, multifaceted - and while there is something that is out there - it is only through the operations of the mind (conceptualization) that it can be known
knowledge is dynamic, interactive and dependent on the experience/position of the observer
knowledge is dynamic, and researchers can choose to invest in a particular perspective
The epistemologies stated here roughly correspond to the epistemologies listed with the research paradigms listed in Mertens' chart.
We then had a somewhat broad-ranging discussion of axiologies = what constitutes "good" and valuable research (ethics). We will pick up on and continue with this for the rest of the term. Keep thinking about your own assumptions about what comprises ethical research, and remember that in our Western culture, we are steeped in the assumptions of the positivist model associated with medical science. So even if you come back to the values listed in the positivist model, spend some time taking them apart, stepping back from them, and thinking about the kinds of community and relationships the different axiologies create.
The perspectives outlined by Mertens included:
postpositivists
social constructivists
transformative researchers
pragmatist
We re-capped these in light of our discussion of the different axiologies, ontologies, epistemologies and methods we discussed, and that was the introduction to this list of big words that we will be working on using to talk about what we do for the rest of the term.
One of the readings for next week is Introduction to the history of composition by James Berlin. Since this essay was written in 1982, obviously this vision of contemporary composition is no longer contemporary. At the same time, it is an important document in the history of writing studies and Berlin's work was foundational in identify features of different approaches to teaching writing that evolved with the development of the discipline. This review of rhetorics and teaching practices used in writing classrooms beginning with Campbell's Philosophy of Rhetoric (1776) names a series of approaches (characterized by epistemology + practices) including: Positivist or Current Traditional, Expressivist, Neo-Platonic, Neo-Aristotelean, and New Rhetoric approaches. As you read this essay, spend some time identifying the assumptions associated with each approach, think about whether/how Berlin's New Rhetoric might hold up in light of the changes in text/composing/and audience/reader relationships brought about through digital technologies, and think about what YOU think about "best practices" for teaching writing in your classroom(s) (in otherwords - think about your assumptions and your students' expectations/writing 'needs').
For next week:
Read: Mertens - review Chapter 1 (we covered this in detail in class) and Chapter 3; also read Chapter 5. Read Chapter 3 and 5 with a mind to noticing (and asking questions about) what you might need to know if you chose to use these methods.
Villanueva& Arola - Berlin (p. 235) and Brodkey (622) and the reaction to Berlin (posted under Reaction Papers, to the right).
Write: work on the NIH training, do some writing for yourself about what you might want to do for your research project
You will notice that Berlin is a literature review, and Brodkey is a comparative study, so we are reading examples of the two methods from Mertens.
In class, I will model the presentation of the reaction paper on Berlin, and then we will, as a class and using the Reaction paper assignment sheet, construct a reaction paper for Brodkey.
We will also read through the list of readings and each of you will choose the two papers you would like to react to, and you will get started on drafting a concept paper for a research project.
We've had a rough start with the bad weather, but I think we should be on track by the end of next class. Have a good week and be in touch if you have questions.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)