NIH “PROTECTING HUMAN RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS” CERTIFICATE

My IRB Cert.

Gee's An Introduction to Discourse Analysis (Chapter 4)

                In the fourth chapter of James Paul Gee’s book, An Introduction to Discourse Analysis, the focus is on social languages, Conversations (with a capital C), and intertextuality. Gee begins by providing some insight into these three terms.

                Gee defines social languages as different varieties of languages that allow us to express socially significant Identities and enact socially meaningful practices and activities. Social language is how the whos and whats are communicated in language. Basically, we are looking at how people communicate who they are and what they are doing. Gee provides many examples, one of which is a warning label on medication. He notes that for this provided example, there are two “who-doing-whats”: a lawyerly voice and a voice of a caring yet authoritatively knowledgeable company. These two voices are used for different purposes and have different effects, and there is some tension between the two. Gee provides a term for this: “heteroglossic”, or double-voiced.

                Gee goes on to discuss how each “who-doing-whats” are linguistically expressed in different social languages. Each social language has its own distinct grammar. Another example is given; a woman has a two conversations about the same topic with two different audiences. Her social language changes based on the audience. Word choice, formal versus informal sentence structure, and level of directness are all effected.

                Conversations are discussed next. Gee defines Conversations (with a capital C) as debates in society or within specific social groups that a large number of people recognize. Gee notes that objects, values, and beliefs play a role in Conversations. And while people often know the themes and values of a Conversation, many do not know the historical events that create or sustain them.

                Intertextuality is the focus of the end of the chapter, and the term is defined as cases where one oral or written text directly or indirectly quotes another text or alludes to another text in more subtle ways. Gee notes that sometimes a text will switch between two or more varieties of language by borrowing words from another text that uses a different variety of language.

                There are a few ways in which a different language variety can be incorporated. Gee mentions direct quotes, indirect quotes, and the act of alluding to a different text. The choice to do one over the other is both meaningful and impactful. One can allude to research without ever quoting any research; this can, in certain instances, be manipulative.

                Gee writes about these three terms because they are tools of inquiry, “our way of talking about and, thus, constructing and construing the world”. They are “thinking devices”.  The chapter concludes with some examples of how one can use social languages, Conversations, and intertextuality as tools for inquiry.

                When reading a text, Gee encourages readers to think about:

“A. What social language(s) are involved? What sorts of grammatical patterns indicate this? Are different social languages mixed? How so?

B. What socially situated identities and activities do these social languages enact?

 C. What Discourse or Discourses are involved? How is “stuff” other than language (“mind stuff” and “emotional stuff” and “world stuff” and “interactional stuff” and non-language symbol systems, etc.) relevant in indicating socially situated identities and activities?

 D. In considering this language, what sorts of relationships among different Discourses are involved (institutionally, in society, or historically)? How are different Discourses aligned or in contention here?

E. What Conversations (public debates over issues or themes) are relevant to understanding this language and to what Conversations does it contribute (institutionally, in society, or historically), if any?

F. How does intertextuality work in the text, that is, in what ways does the text quote, allude to, or otherwise borrow words from other oral or written sources? What function does this serve in the text?”

Teachers as Researchers

“Developing a Definition of Teacher Researcher” defines teacher research as being intentional, systematic, public, voluntary, ethical, and contextual.

 

Intentional:

Teachers choose research questions that matter to them, and their research is responsive to their learning needs. While teachers can’t predict their discoveries, they approach the process of research with the intention of learning more about their teaching and their students’ learning.

 

Systematic:

Teacher researchers analyze both quantitative and qualitative data. They collect a variety of kinds of data in order to triangulate findings. They formulate theories in relation to their analysis.

 

Public:

Often, students and colleagues are enlisted as co-researchers. Teacher researchers discuss data, hunches, assumptions, methods, and their interpretations. They also make an effort to make their research public and join the professional discourse.

 

Voluntary:

There is a potential risk and vulnerability to this kind of work because teachers publically examine their beliefs, assumptions, and understandings.

 

Ethical:

A teacher researcher’s primary responsibility is to the students. They should seek student affirmation and acknowledge discrepancies.

 

Contextual:

Rather than attempt to control variables, teacher researchers “strive to define, articulate, and elucidate the context as a whole”. The research shapes and is shaped by its context.

 

Marian M. Mohr’s article, “The Teacher as Researcher”, was very interesting. Mohr begins by mentioning that she began work as a teacher researcher almost by accident—at least not intentionally. She started keeping a journal of her day to day experiences in the classroom in order to make sense of her seemingly overwhelming introduction into life as a teacher. She mentions that there was just too much going on each day to really process any of it fully.

Mohr notes that teacher researchers are like students in their own classrooms. They need to pay attention and notice the details of their classes’ experiences. One of the learning experiences that she writes about came from an experience of misspelling a spelling word. She writes about the “humiliation of not knowing everything”—a teacher’s worst nightmare. But the class as a whole seemed to grow from the experience. She also writes about discussing her students’ writing habits with them. At first, she thought some students made noise or could not sit still while writing because they were not paying attention. She thought this was something that had to be stopped. It happened to be the opposite; the students were paying so much attention to their writing that they simply tuned out their habits and those of their classmates.

In closing, Mohr writes that she became more of a professional because she became more of a student in her own classroom. She learned and grew from her experiences and observations.

In “A Teacher-Research Group in Action”, Schecter and Ramirez conducted a study which sought to address several concerns about teacher research. The authors were concerned with the kinds of support that a teacher researcher needs in order to conduct classroom research, the effects of becoming researchers on teachers’ views of classroom practice, and the kinds of knowledge that teacher research can provide.

The authors used audio recordings, field notes, formal interviews, participant journals, and participant progress reports in order to conduct their research. They found that a theme of professional self-growth emerged amongst the teachers. Many reported positive effects as they sought to address the question: “what works in the classroom?” There were some concerns surrounding support. Some teachers expressed concern with “being able to find time to sit down and concentrate and do some writing”. Others were concerned with “the structure and content of the group meetings”. However, the research seemed to point to more benefits than not.

3/28: Yancey and Lauer

Yancey’s “Theory, Practice, and the Bridge Between”

In this article, Yancey discusses reflective transfer. She begins by asking some important questions: “How have I taught? How do I understand my own teaching? What have my students learned?” Yancey points out that because we work with human beings—students are not lab rats—it’s not that simple to “know” that they have learned or how well your teaching methods work. She argues that this sort of “knowing” is “too singular, too reductive, ultimately too inhuman”. But we do need to know what works, and so Yancey suggests reflection as a means of identifying causes of desired effects.

There are four steps to reflective transfer.

1.       Observe and examine your own practice.

2.       Make hypotheses about successes and failures and the reasons behind them.

3.       Shape the next iteration of similar experience based on your learning.

4.       Begin the cycle again.

Yancey notes that reflection is collaborative. The teacher plans and delivers the curriculum, and the students experience it. The points of intersection among delivered and experienced is where learning and teaching occur.

“good teachers are always students: learning about their own learning processes, about their teaching, about curricula, about students.”

Yancey goes on to discuss her experience with reflection in her own class. One of the reflective aspects that she mentions is providing a list of questions for her students at the end of the term. Some of the questions: “Describe the student who came through the door in January”, “Describe the teacher who will be leaving in May”, “What has this person learned about theory?”.

The article concludes with the idea that when reflection works, it raises more questions than it answers. But that is a good thing: reflection and learning should be a continuous endeavor.

 

Lauer’s “Historical Review: Issues in Rhetorical Invention”

                Notes on Part One: Theoretical Issues

-Invention has been positioned differently in rhetorical history.

-3 issues: differences over what constitutes invention, its purpose, and its underlying epistemology

 

Greek views:

-3 dominant Greek conceptions of invention

-Interpretations of Sophists, Plato, and Aristotle

-Differences exist over which inventional acts and arts are included

- Disagree over purposes of invention:

                -Initiating discourse with questions, issues, contradictions

                -Creating knowledge

                -Reaching probable judgment

                -Finding arguments to support existing theses

                -Communicating truths

                -Supporting persuasive propositions

 

Roman Views

 

-Differed from the Greeks and among themselves and their interpreters

-Invention was largely viewed as finding support for judgments and material for sections of the text

Cicero’s conceptions of invention would prevail through hundreds of years and influenced theory and practice through the Renaissance and still characterize pedagogies and textbooks today

 

Invention in Second Sophistic, Medieval, and Renaissance Rhetoric

 

-Invention narrowed to function and rarely served an epistemic purpose in the Second Sophistic period

-Classical status and topics were transfigured for new generic purposes

-Epistemic function of rhetorical invention practically disappeared, giving way to theology and the scientific method

-Renaissance: version of classical invention was adapted for vernacular culture

-Bacon: rhetorical invention dealt only with retrieving the known, while science created new knowledge

 

18^th -19^th Century Invention

 

-Scottish and British rhetoricians considered logic the home of invention. Rhetoric was assigned to communication

- Invention was compartmentalized into faculties of understanding, imagination, emotion, and will

-19^th century: rhetoric was replaced with composition, which was devoted to practice and criticism.

-women rhetorical theorists brought new interests to composition

Christopher Ferry: "Theory, Research, Practice, Work"

Christopher Ferry’s “Theory, Research, Practice, Work” begins with Paulo Freire’s argument that education must be a process by which students and teachers transform reality and become more fully human by working together. Ferry notes that “Praxis” is central to this process—praxis being the interaction between thought (refection) and action. In order for the process to be effective, both components must be present.

Ferry then goes on to use Freire’s praxis concept to examine the different components of composition studies: theory, research, practice, and work. He also seeks to find the place in which “work” fits within the realm of higher education. What exactly is this “work”? What exactly is it that we do?  

“what we have in composition now is an unbalanced praxis, one that seems focused on reflection at the expense of action (or to put in more appropriate terms for this essay, a praxis focused on theory at the expense of work).”

“I want to make a case that in composition our focus on theory leads us to overlook the teaching of writing”

Ferry writes that we perceive theory and practice as separate. He discusses the historical shift that occurred within universities, a change that placed more emphasis on research than teaching. Now, there are apparently some who see writing teachers as part of the “academic working class”. Ferry notes that most of the time, when academics are referring to their work, they are not referring to the act of teaching; they are referring to their own writing or their research.

The divide between the two realms of the English department—literature and composition studies—is also discussed. Referring to writing teachers, Ferry references David Bartholomae: “As a professor, you’re not identified with something of great cultural value, like Shakespeare or the English novel…. You’re identified with the minds and words of 18-year olds”.   

Going back to Paulo Freire’s concept of praxis, Ferry stresses the idea that there must be a dialog between reflection and action, between humans to name and transform the world. Teachers must work with students; learning must take place together, continuously. Ferry discusses the idea the classroom as “a culture in progress” and as a grounds for theory-work. Learning environments should be inclusive and there is a need to replace the “us versus them” model, to break down the power structure.

Johanek's "Predictor Variables: The Future of Composition Research"

I really enjoyed reading Johanek’s seventh chapter, “Predictor Variables: The Future of Composition Research”. The first section, “MLA Voice, My Voice”, in which Johanek writes about her decision to switch from MLA to APA during the process of writing her book, was especially interesting. As I may have mentioned in the past, I am a die-hard MLA fan. But… I will admit that this chapter, and Johanek’s reasoning, made me soften a little to the prospect of using APA.

The reasoning behind her decision to switch to APA was something that I had never considered before. Johanek writes that the use of present tense in MLA is fitting because one is writing about literature, and literature “can always be interpreted, reinterpreted, criticized, but the work itself will not change”. So its ok to write in present tense because the focus is on the product, and the product never changes.

However, in composition, “our texts serve a different purpose: constructing theory, presenting research, and discussing pedagogy are acts that focus not on the product of the text that resulted from such inquiry, but on the process of thinking that was used to arrive at that text”. The product still lasts forever, but now the world around it has changed, and so the writer may have changed as well.

Johanek writes: “Our use of MLA ties the theories, research, and pedagogies to their authors in the present tense as if those authors still believe… that theory, research, or pedagogy”. The use of MLA in composition research makes it seem “as if those works will always represent what those authors are thinking now”.  This seems irresponsible. Most authors evolve; they gain experience and insight that change the way that they think about their field. But, I have to admit, I had never thought of this as being such an oversight before now. In the future, this will change the way that I gather information. It’s not enough to find a source and use it. To tell the whole story, you need to look into what the author wrote before and after that, to make note of the changes in that field of research and how the researcher’s ideas changed and evolved (or if they didn’t).

Jessica Taylor

ENG

2/21/2016

Dr. Zamora

Response to “Numbers, Narratives, and He Vs. She: Issues of Audience in Composition Research”

               The forth chapter of Cindy Johanek’s book Composing Research focuses on arguments against the traditional research paradigm, which to many compositionists is considered to be male-dominated, written in a disinteresting style, and unpleasant to read and write. According to Johanek, moving forward from the “traditional research” paradigm, and towards acceptance of qualitative research and storytelling, allows for more diverse researchers to express their voices. The chapter focuses on three sources of arguments against the traditional research model: general anxiety about mathematics and statistics, feminist response to that older model, and our preference for writing that is more creative and literary than the standard research report (57). Throughout the entire chapter, however, there is the overlapping of Johanek’s opinion that research methods relying on numerical data should remain valuable and continues to have an important place in composition research.

               Johanek first focuses on the general anxiety of mathematics and statistics. Math provides insight and enhances our understanding, but many compositionists seem to avoid research that deals with statistical analysis. Why? One reason that Johanek offers is that numbers are often seen as being in a separate world than people, and compositionists are in the business of “people stories”. Johanek cites many examples of researchers who apologize for their use of numbers and who sometimes do the work of collecting the data, but don’t share that data with readers. In “Counting Beans and Making Beans Count” (1997) Lerner apologizes to readers by writing that he is aware that “numbers can obscure” and that they can “reduce those complex human beings…down to manageable integers” (59). He does this because he is aware of his dual audience. On one hand, his research complies with the needs of administrators—“college administrators often want numbers, digits, and results”. On the other hand, Lerner is writing to an audience of his peers, compositionists and those who are interested in Writing Center work (59).

               Some researchers go further than apologizing for their data, sometimes they completely leave it out. Both Fitzgerald, Mulvhill, and Dobson (1991) and Hunzer (1997) are examples of researchers that gathered data but didn’t share it. In the case of Fitzgerland et. al., the authors referred to their survey but didn’t report any of the quantitative data produced by that survey. Hunzer formed an entire data analysis around five in-person student interviews and not from the responses of the thirty-nine survey responses. One may ask, what is the purpose of doing the work of compiling the data, if a researcher doesn’t use it? Is this a manipulation of data? Or is it the author’s right to have a voice and to not feel forced to report statistics in their research? Perhaps one might argue that it is enough that the researcher leaned something by collecting the data…

               Johanek suggests that it should not come as a surprise that some researchers seem to shy away from statistics and mathematics because research textbooks in the field of composition often ignore math too. She goes on to cite some examples of composition research textbooks that refer readers elsewhere to learn statistics on their own. Many have a list of suggested readings in the appendix. And while none of the textbooks that Johanek mentions are statistics textbooks, they did review research methods that relied on statistical analysis. Johanek argues that without walking readers through the basic procedures to help them understand the logic of statistical concepts, definitions offered by these texts can be confusing or vague (66-67). She warns that math related anxiety is not uncommon in a field more concerned with words than numbers and lack of confidence can sometimes lead to avoidance.

               The next argument that Johanek tackles is that of feminist response to the traditional research paradigm. She notes that for years, feminists have been criticizing science and scientific thought because of the male domination of the science fields, society’s general acceptance that science is power, and the long standing social expectation that women should engage in humanities and the arts rather than analytical sciences (68). Johanek points out that feminists and non-feminists alike can ask feminist and non-feminist research questions, both men and women can engage in feminist inquiry, and feminist contributions can aid our understanding of both men and women, and the power struggle that we live in (69). She also notes that it would be a mistake to choose a research method only because some topics seem better suited to women or avoid others because of their male-dominated history.

               For some, the inclusion of women and women’s issues involves a change in methodology. Masculine thought is thought to focus on the objective, the data, and the procedures. So for many, research that involves a lot of numerical data embodies a set of masculine values (71). According to Johanek, we now seek different methods that seem to embrace the “personal journey” and allow for emotion. Harding (1987) proposed three characteristics of feminist inquiry: focuses on the issues important to women, grounds inquiry in women’s experiences, and personally involves the researcher (72). Yet when Kirsch (1993) constructed her research according to these principles and later apologized for her traditional looking research, she inadvertently implied that traditional research is never based on experience, never involves the researcher, and never examines feminist research questions (74).

               Lastly, Johanek explores our preference for narrative, noting that even when numbers and narratives are combined, narratives are sometimes given more weight. Enos (1996) is quoted as saying, “I believe our stories, more than statistics, tell who we are” (75).  Storytelling, Johanek argues, is a form that writing teachers naturally gravitate towards, and it serves as the primary selling point of methods such as ethnography. Later it is also noted that storytelling has the power to construct our identities as teachers and as writers. Cultural narratives involve the researcher as a part of the research itself; here, the author, more than the method, controls the texts. And this shift, away from method and toward the author, allows for the feature of emotion (79-80). This is what draws in composition researchers. According to Paulos (1995), “It is easier to react emotionally, more natural” (80). So, we avoid mathematical, rational, and statistical methods because it’s difficult, and the emotional is easier and feels more natural.

               In summary, Johanek warns readers to be careful not to dismiss methods that rely on numerical data. This type of research is not necessarily anti-women, anti-humanist, or anti-creative. All research, and the way it is taught, has the potential to “include the feminist, to understand mathematics as a storytelling language, and to include narrative as a foundation for, and an extension of, research in relation to experience and practice” (82-83).

Discussion questions:

1.     Does Lerner (or any of these researchers) really need to justify his methodology? Is he apologizing because he is writing to two different audiences at once? Can apologies be used to manipulate readers?

2.     What is your reaction to researchers leaving out some or most of their data? Is it a waste of time? Could it be enough that they may have learned something in the process? Could this also be a manipulation? What about the argument for voice?

3.      Statistics is needed to convert data into information. How much of a background should composition researchers have?

4.      Moving forward into your own research, what, if anything, did you take away from reading this chapter?