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.
No comments:
Post a Comment