My IRB Cert.
Jessica Taylor Writing Research and Methods
Sunday, April 17, 2016
Tuesday, April 5, 2016
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?”
Thursday, March 31, 2016
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.
Monday, March 28, 2016
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
18th -19th 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
-19th century: rhetoric
was replaced with composition, which
was devoted to practice and criticism.
-women rhetorical theorists brought new interests to composition
Monday, March 21, 2016
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.
Monday, February 29, 2016
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).
Monday, February 22, 2016
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)