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.
Tuesday, April 28, 2015
Monday, April 20, 2015
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.
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.
Tuesday, April 14, 2015
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
and the sample forms (listed below)
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
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.
Monday, April 6, 2015
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)
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.
maybe a better question is the actual question the essay answers => how does it work?
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)