NIH "Protecting Human Research Participants" Certificate

See my NIH CERTIFICATE.

Gee's "An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method"

Social language, types of language that express our identity.
Conversation, public debates with recognizable sides.
Intertextuality.when one text references another.

Discourses, words, deeds, actions. Look at language only to determine how people communicate who they are and what they're doing. The aspirin warning was a great example. I know what the authors are talking about now. Who's doing what = social language.

The example about Jane surprises me only in that Jane couldn't figure out that she speaks differently with different people without undertaking the experiment. The science article example seems a bit overkill. I get it already. Oh, interesting. The who you are and what you're doing in language is historically shaped. Ok.

Collocational patterns. Signal with grammar. Decontextualized grammar is when you use very little signaling. Not sure how else to explain it, but I get that. The idea that lower income kids do poorly in school because they don't know how to use decontextualized language...interesting. We talked about that at Essex.

Hypothesis not allowing me to highlight the text I want to comment on. So annoying.

Tools of inquiry and thinking devices. Ask questions when interpreting a text.

Conversations with a capital C. Maybe that's why no one listens to each other anymore in America. All the background Conversations get in the way.

Teachers - Researchers

Developing a Definition of Teacher Research

We define teacher research as inquiry that is intentional, systematic, public, voluntary, ethical, and contextual. 

 Intentional: Teachers decide what they want to examine, practices and learning, in the classroom, and then go about collecting and analyzing data. They want to examine teaching and learning.

Systematic: Qualitative and quantitative.

Public: Move from their own assumptions to challenging them. Colleagues and students involved. Making their research public through presentations and publications adds to the body of knowledge in the field.

Voluntary: Any teacher who wants to examine his/her practice can research. Unlike professors, teachers are not judged based on whether they research/publish or not.

Ethical: Teacher research benefits students. Teachers get permission to quote or use sample student work.

Contextual: Instead of controlling for variables and creating an experiment, teachers must define and work within their classroom context.

The definition of teacher research is clear, but I'm not sure how it's different from any other type of research.

The Teacher as Researcher

Love that she became a researcher "by accident," but so sick of hearing about how poor teachers are so tired and have no time. And poor adjuncts are so tired and overworked and mistreated and have no time. She had time to write a journal, though. She prioritized, and made time for what she valued. Ugh--stop with the excuses everyone, please!

This is one of those articles that hypothesis won't let me highlight. Grrr.

Teachers do not stand back and look at what goes on without also suggesting solutions to problems. Researches maintain objectivity towards their subjects, not attempting to effect change. 

How could the author misspell aggressive? Obviously, she was never a cheerleader. :)

OMG the noises...

The author says that once they received a grade the process seemed over to the students. Agreed. Learned that theory last summer, and tried it out in the class since then. In my experience, students will continue to revise until they get a grade. After that, it's over. If they get a bad grade, they want to know what I want so they can get a better grade. Better to give comments, or a rubric, or direction, or have a conference, than to give a grade early.

A Teacher-Research Group in Action

Who let this paper get published with a typo in the name of the university? C'mon, man....

Teachers who research become leaders and better teachers. Right. In any field, those interested and willing to examine their own practices are going to improve themselves. These folks did a two year study to examine teacher-research groups.

I'm beginning to realize I am and have been an avid researcher, I just haven't written anything up for review or publication. I research an issue or two in my classes every semester. Hmm, what to do now that I know this?

Typos in this article are becoming distracting. It makes me wonder if their research methods are just as sloppy.

Another one. Seriously? I doubt the authors' capabilities as professionals. I'll read to the end, but at this point they've lost my confidence.

They describe participation in a research project.
Teachers describe needing time to focus, read, and write.
This project seems too open-ended. No sure what the point of the group is.
Teachers reported self-growth after participating in the project group. They found relief from teacher isolation. One said teaching won't be a profession until teachers start reading and conducting research.

(I was highlighting all the typos on hypothesis and realized there were so ridiculously many that I went back and erased all the highlights.)

Teachers, unlike university researchers, did not do lit reviews on their topics. They did not feel constrained to conform to the style of research reports (maybe because many had not read them?).  The group began to favor the double-narrative as accepted.

This group was basically a group of teachers using the biweekly group time as support and specified time to complete their individual research projects. I thought at first that the group was going to complete a group project. Now it makes sense. This would be a very cool project. It's a little like completing the TIW with the KUWP. I'd like to start a group like this at NJIT. Maybe a group of lecturers (non-tenure track) and adjuncts? Would have to be after graduation. Oooh, might even get a course release to head the group (if I'm teaching 4 at that point.)  Need to think on this some more...sock it away for next year....

Great articles, Colin!

Lauer's Invention in Composition and Rhetoric, Chapter 3

We will cover only the Greeks in this short reading.

The first couple pages talk about Kairos, and after reading it closely I'm not sure what Kairos means in context of this article. I know it's the name of a religious retreat that Jesuit students attend. The retreat includes prayer, small group discussion, reflection, silence, and letter writing.
A couple pages further....Without having read the first two chapters, I'm a little lost. Book too long to read online. Just ordered it on Amazon, $13.

Scholars argue over Plato's view's of rhetoric in Phaedrus. Plato's view, 4 sources for the initiation of discourse
1. inspiration of the muses
2. dissonance between the two speeches that prompts the third speech
3. adaptation to the situation by knowing the souls of the audience
4. love itself

Some interpret Plato's view as: Truth can't be found in writing; writing is not the originator of thinking. Others wonder whether Plato thinks rhetoric creates knowledge or only conveys it.

Scholars disagree over Aristotle's Rhetoric, too. Issues of contention include kairos and stasis.

In general, it seems that scholars think Plato believes rhetoric and discourse discover knowledge and that Aristotle believes rhetoric and discourse create knowledge. I think Dr. Zamora agrees with Aristotle.

Under Construction Chapter 16: Yancey's "Theory, Practice, and the Bridge Between"

How to figure out what teaching methods work through reflecting on them. I like Yancey because she is a scholar and a teacher.

She starts by pondering what works in the classroom, and how she knows it works. She is going to describe her method of practice-reflection-theory.

Reflective transfer:
1. Observe and examine our own practices
2. Hypothesize about success, failure, and reasons
3. Shape the next experience accordingly
4. Begin the cycle again

This is what I do with every unit I teach, but I never put it in that outline form or thought about it specifically in those terms before. She says delivery and experience of curricula is different. Yup. That's why one of the options I'm considering for my thesis project is to work through my own "Writing Research" course, so I can reflect as both teacher and student.

At the end of the semester she evaluates data. One way is to use individual students as case studies. Another way is to take a particular assignment and read across the class to evaluate what was learned. Note to self--I'm going to do that. I want to use two particular students: Brandon (or Adam) and Sahar (or Laura) as case studies. I want to use the Progress Report unit to read across both classes.

This is a great paper, because she uses the learning of her own students to learn about her own effectiveness. She reflects upon the written reflections of her students to inform her practice. Love this. I've done similar, but she is very methodical. Writing out the results would be so valuable, instead of just thinking about them. I'd like to do it, too. Will take some time after the semester ends to evaluate HUM 102 at portfolio time based on how Yancey did.

She sees the differences between the strong and weak students, and asks questions about how she can improve the experience for the weak students. Going to reread this chapter, too. So useful.

Reaction Paper: Farris and Ansons Chapters 1 and 2

Martha Kein
Dr. Zamora
English 5002
7 March 2016

Introduction to Under Construction: Working at the Intersection of 

Composition Theory, Research, and Practice

The book Under Construction shows the field of Composition to be growing and changing. It highlights and discusses changes in higher education, politics, economics, technology, and student demographics. Composition studies is not yet an entirely legitimate field in the scheme of Humanities and English Departments, and has yet to embrace a unifying theory. Articles and essays address varied and current issues in the field.

Part 1 of the book is called "The Research/Theory/Practice Relationship." What do compositionists know? is a question that underscores much of the work in this section as authors focus on the relationship between scholarship and teaching practices in the field. The concensus seems to be that the field focuses on theory instead of work, with no concrete plans for change or remediation.

Chapter 1 by Christopher Ferry: Theory, Research, Practice, Work

Ferry begins and ends his essay with Frier's theory of praxis. He discusses the interaction between reflection and action that results in the transformation of the world. He calls it the labor of helping each other become more fully human. Without action, reflection is just thoughts or verbalism. Without thought, action is just activism or misguided and/or emotional reaction. Frier beleives that both thought and action must be ever present to effect change. Ferry agrees, and wants to examine the nature of compositionists' "work" in academia through this lens.

Paying attention to the professional literature in composition would lead one to believe that compositionists are researchers, and that they research to create theory.  Work, the actual teaching of composition, is removed from this creation of theory and knowledge, and is a separate endeavor, and not highly valued.

Creating scientific knowledge is important, but so is classroom knowledge. Creating theory without taking classroom practice into account is the equivalent of reflection without action. This, according to Frier's theory and Ferry's opinion, constitutes unbalanced praxis. Ferry blames much of this unbalance on academic institutions creating heirarchy, power, and privilege for their elite.

The academy bases success on scholarship, not teaching. Ferry believes that in composition, we focus too much on theory, at the expense of the teachers and students. Theory is created by scholars, while practitioner knowledge is called "lore." Those who work, teach, and do are not considered experts; they are just doers. Researchers think about, create knowledge and theory, theorize about doing. Ferry cites Harkin, who claims we have it backwards: "We should work up from lore, not down from theory."

The gap between scientific knowledge makers and teachers has a long history. As universities gained importance, the faculty put more emphasis and importance on discovering "truth" than doing actual work. So scientifically minded scholars placed low value on undergraduate teachers. Departments became ivory towers cut off from the real world. Publish or perish; make knowledge, or be useless, were the guiding principles of distinguished departments at elite universities.

Knowledge making is professional and sets scholars apart for the teaching working-class. Many academics don't do actual "work." Little is written about teaching in classrooms with students because it is considered "unprofessional." This maintains a safe distance and heirarchy for the "professional class" who are privileged in the university and gain power and prestige. Workers are considered less knowledgeable, less valuable, less important. The professor as teacher is devalued, while the scholar who does little work but theorizing is elevated in status.

Ferry suggests that lore from the working class and theory from the professional class should be joined to create praxis. He cites Frier again, pointing to the Christian roots of his theory of praxis. Frier's theory comes from theology and refers to the Christian principles of faith in action. One who believes will act on that belief. Therefore, "belief generates the praxis." He uses the examples of rebirth and Easter to describe how a compositionist should experience teaching in thought and action. The instructor must die to his or her own assumptions and be reborn anew with each semester and each new group of students. This will marry theory and practice to elevate all: scholars, teachers, and students. Instead, Ferry refers to the "service ghetto of composition teaching" and mourns the plight of adjuncts, graduate students, and literature scholars who must teach first year writing. He advocates for the classroom to be acknowledged as culture in progress. He wants to break down institutional and classroom power struggles.

Students should understand writing not as just assignments, but as part of being human, "reading the word and the world." If this occurred, students and teachers could speak for themselves in professional environments, rather than being spoken about.

Chapter 2 by Peter Vandenberg: Composing Composition Studies: 

Scholarly Publication and the Practice of Discipline

Vandenberg takes up Ferry's argument and expands upon it. He starts by explaining the history of why Rhetoric and Composition was looked down upon as a field.

In the mid-1800's, American universities emulated German universities. Researchers had more clout than teachers; they were considered scholars, not workers. And scholars published for each other, not for the uneducated. When student population increased, universities had to hire an increased number of instructors to meet demand for classes. These instructors were not scholars, they were teachers. There was not a viable path to becoming a scholar once one was a teacher. Further, it could take 20 years to become a faculty member, and teachers could not support themselves on a teaching stipend alone without another job. In fact, "some professors were so notoriously poor that they had to take handouts from their mentors." Administrators took advantage of this. They increased their status and took money from patrons to research and further their studies, careers, and fame. The workers continued to make a pittance. Professors are considered productive if they publish, and unproductive if they don't. Unfortunately, teaching has nothing to do with productivity or success in academia.
The 19th century industrial management model that was working across Europe and the US in factories was applied also to academia: students are the materials, teachers are workers, superiors and administrators plan, manage, and profit from the arrangement.

One hundred years later, Composition is a growing and evolving field. It is becoming an acknowledged profession and field. However, the situation has not changed much from centuries past. Being in composition means either publishing research or teaching. Those who research also teach, but usually they teach much less, and only because the department requires it. This serves to inflate those who are scholars and debase those who teach in the eyes of the university. "Researchers have created a professional-client relationship with teachers of first year writing."

In composition, specifically, the field is still struggling with literature for institutional legitimacy. And so, composition has followed in the shameful footsteps of those departments in the academy that focus on research and relegate the dirty job of teaching to others.

In a political power move, academic scholars appropriated Composition as a field, although they had no right to. What knowledge did they actually hold? In truth, it is the practitioners who hold the knowledge of what theories work, why, and how. But publishing academics have to justify their existance and superiority in some way, and degrading and belittling the teacher is one way. Another way is to point out that they aren't following a standard career path, implying their path is sub-standard. Further, they can be degraded because they don't write, or even read, the scholarly research, which leaves them out of the conversation. The assumption is that the teacher is bad and the researcher will come in with theory and research and help move the floundering teacher into better practices. The assumption is that teachers who don't produce research, or at least participate by reading it, are doing more harm than good.

Non publishing teachers are economically disadvantaged. They are regarded as temps and amateurs, ranked and rated only by those thought to have less knowledge than themselves, the students. They work with no benefits, merit pay, or opportunities for promotion. Publishing authors define the discourse and the objectives in the field.

Vandenberg's conclusion: the field is heirarchical based on class and privilege. The publishing professional is the ideal of excellence, anything less is contemptible. Writing teachers are not employed to produce text, but to teach multiple sections of first year writing. Vandenberg calls for the end of the division of labor and academics building their professional success on the backs of writing teachers.

Response to Chapters 1 and 2

Both Ferry and Vandenberg hope to change the power structure in English departments and academia in general and gives provocative reasons for doing so. They challenge the status quo and call for change. However, neither offers any concrete strategies to follow for accomplishing these goals. They argue the case, but stop once they feel the audience is convinced. They effectively leave the plan of action to us.

These harsh theories may be true, but perhaps the "establishment" isn't entirely to blame. Practitioners in a field should participate in professional development and stay abreast of the conversations and innovations in their fields. If you act like a worker, you will be treated like one. 

Personally, I don't feel that I am mistreated as an adjunct. When I want to participate in department affairs, workshops, and projects, I have not had a problem (except once). I feel valued and appreciated. I don't make much money, but I work only 6 hours a week in class, with another estimated 6 hours in planning and grading. And this for only 30 weeks of the year, not 50. I make my own schedule, choose which days, times and classes I'd like to teach, and have autonomy in my own classroom. When I want a semester off, I take it with no consequences. Self-direction, low time commitment, and flexibility are all crucial to my enjoyment of teaching at university. 

There was one instance where I wanted to participate on a project, and the Lead wouldn't let me, saying that it wasn't fair that I should work since there was no budget to pay me. In hindsight, I now suspect he'd read Ferry and/or Vandenberg. Unfortunately, by looking at the situation through his own lens of "fairness," he excluded me from a project that I considered developmentally significant for me. I was willing to participate voluntarily, but was denied the opportunity in the interest of "fairness." Further, it is my understanding that the project struggled because it was lacking staff.

The only barrier I have had to my advancement is ObamaCare. Because of the new rules, part time employees cannot work on campus more than 3 days a week, or the school would have to offer them benefits. This limits the amount of classes an adjunct can teach. So all adjuncts got their hours/days cut. Before, I could teach Mon/Wed and Tues/Thurs. Now, that's not possible, so even more than before, part timers need to piece together a living at many different schools. Added difficulties include travel time and administrative compliance at multiple schools. If I had to pay my bills from my adjunct's salary, I would be in bad shape. (There was a story of a math adjunct at Essex who was living in his car in the campus parking deck. Whether it was true or not doesn't matter. It was plausible, and all the adjuncts I knew believed it.)

Based on chapters 1 and 2 in the book Under Contruction, there is room for improvement in both politics and personnel issues at universities. However, because there are plenty of workers willing to adjunct, and plenty of professors willing to hire them to work while they theorize and publish, I don't see a change happening soon. There is no clear path to increased salary or career advancement for the university's teachers, yet there are always enough adjuncts to fill the ranks. What is the incentive for the elite professors or the university administration to improve the situation for teachers? Without incentive, action is unlikely.

Questions

1. In light of the information in Chapters 1 and 2, would teaching at a university be right for you? Under what circumstances?

2. How do you feel a change could be instituted? Where would the impetus for change come from?

3. Are Ferry and Vandenberg looking through their privileged lens at this "problem?"

4. In what other jobs do workers have no merit pay, no benefits, and no opportunities for promotion? How do the qualifications for those jobs compare with the qualifications required for university professors?

Resources

Farris, Christine, and Chris M. Anson (Eds). Under Construction: Working at the Intersection of Composition Theory, Research, and Practice. Logan, UT: Utah State UP, 1998.

Ferry, Christopher. “Theory, Research, Practice, Work”. Under Construction. Ed. CHRISTINE FARRIS and CHRIS M. ANSON. University Press of Colorado, 1998. 11–18. Web.

Vandenberg, Peter. “Composing Composition Studies: Scholarly Publication and the Practice of Discipline”. Under Construction. Ed. CHRISTINE FARRIS and CHRIS M. ANSON. University Press of Colorado, 1998. 19–29. Web.

Link to Discussion Lead Presentation

The Process Approach to Writing Instruction, Chapter 19, by Pritchard & Honeycutt

This one's going to be about process, and it's going to focus on teaching K-12. It's also going to talk about the NWP and whether it's advancing professional development for teachers.

They start with a lit review. But they'll only include studies that use observation (empirical) evidence. And only those that deal with K-12. Are they limited, or focused? We'll see.

Hillock's "natural process mode" sounds like a vacation for the teachers and a waste for the students. Glad we finished with that theory. Or are we? We did something very similar in ENG 086 at Essex a few years ago. Prewrite-Plan-Write-Revise. Sounds similar to what the authors are describing. The research later determines that teacher instruction helps students' writing improve with the process model.

Let me say one more time that I hate hypothesis. This time, I cannot highlight or quote. Is it dependent upon the page that's being annotated? I'm signed in, I'm using Chrome. This program is a nuisance, not a useful tool. Disrupting my reading, is all it's doing.

The process model seems to have evolved and continues to evolve. They talk about education in rhetoric in ancient Greece, and then jump to the 50's when writing began to be understood as a process. There were also writing groups, but not widespread until the 70's. The process approach was born when writers wanted to introduce how real writers write into classroom instruction. This has been the standard in writing pedagogy since the 1980's, but it's usually been presented as linear instead of recursive. Linear isn't really how it works, though.

Janet Emig's dissertation, I remember: convey message and self reflection. And the Graves study, which was basically all observation and case study with little kids. We read both last semester (or over the summer?). And now Elbow's work. It's like a bunch of old pals...

Research in the 80's about the process approach says that using the process approach almost every day gives best results. This from lots of schools and huge sample sizes, but none of the data is actually available. What? And the term "process writing" was never defined for the study. Really? and even the researchers don't agree on what it is. So what's the value of the research?

Calkins' study seems extremely problematic. Sample size of 1? I would assume that an intelligent and harworking child's writing would have developed from one grade to the next regardless of the teaching method.

Honeycutt used the "grounded approach."

Prewriting is a large part of the process approach. Before, the only prewriting was discussing the assignment.  Also, revision was neglected prior to the process approach.

So, does the National Writing Project help train teachers to teach the process approach? The summer institute is the tool that is supposed to handle this task. It serves approximatel 1 in 40 teachers in all states, and has lots of testimonial to say that it does improve teachers' teaching strategies. The ability to study transferability to the classroom is not available. Most evidence is empirical, based on teacher feedback of "teacher impact, " not student impact. However, there is evidence that students benefit from the training the teachers receive, and that coworkers (teachers) benefit from the shared learning of teachers in their schools. In 2004, the NWP put some research standards into place to evaluate their impact.

The authors call for studies to determine whether the process approach is better for certain genres of writing than others. They also want to see the subprocesses studied. They want to see pedagogy grounded in research to determine best practices.

Chapter 9, Neff's Grounded Theory: A Critical Research Methodologoy

Started this chapter once and walked away.  Started again, with hypothesis, and lost interest. Started a third time and saw Fulkerson's name. Left the house. Starting again, with intentions to finish. Time to bring in the heavy artillary, or I won't get through it.

So we're going to talk about numbers and research again. Ok. Here are the main points of the article:

-we have not made enough progress in developing methodologies that interrogate distinctions between composition theory and the teaching of writing;

-we have not studied our research methodologies as social practices in themselves.

Grounded theory is based on analyzing data to generate theory. Sounds solid to me. But likely, there are other, less onerous ways to generate theory. Neff makes a hideously dreary introduction to grounded theory and then proposes its usefulness and promise in composition studies. I'd like to suggest she consider her rhetorical situation (purpose and audience) the next time she sets out to write an introduction.

Application: Grounded theory works by maintaining an open research question throughout, and understanding that closure may not occur. The examples are starting to sound interesting.

How to do research in grounded theory:
Make assumptions, collect data, analyze data (coding, memoing, diagramming). Ok, a couple pages later, the examples are getting very interesting.

Aside: Very frustrated with hypothesis. It doesn't always allow me to highlight or capture text to comment upon. So it seems some of my comments are out of context. It also keeps crashing my computer. It is very tedious, and if it weren't required, I'd have stopped using it by now. Still too glitchy, not a useful tool yet.

Grounded theory research blurs the line between taking notes on research and writing the research report. The researcher makes connections, interprets, and documents. Neff ends by saying grounded research makes us accountable.

Well, this wasn't such as bad read after all. Neff should have collaborated on that introduction, maybe worked with a Writing Center associate for some feedback before she put that out there :)

Chapter 7 Predictor Variables, The Future of Composition Research

This chapter starts out a bid radical, calling MLA format into question, and going straight to the need for research methods, stats training, and numbers to make the field of Composition more respected.


The MLA argument focused on the way MLA citations refer to a living document. That works with literature, but maybe not so much with research. The author uses the example of a research paper written in the 70's. Does the author of that paper still believe what she believed in the 70's? Citing in in MLA format suggests she does, suggests that her research is a current and living document. But in reality, that researcher may have changed her mind a dozen times since she wrote that report. Who knows?

The rest of the article talks about the lack of training for comp researchers. It looked a a variety of programs, and determined that methods and stats are not being taught, or used, or valued properly.
It ends by trying to convince readers of the importance of numbers and gives examples of how often they are useful in daily life. Sort of preaching to the choir the whole article, as far as I'm concerned.

Aside: It seems I annotated our first weeks' reading properly, but then annotated the second week's reading  "publicly", so you won't see my annotataions if you are logged in to the class and not the public sphere. So frustrating. I'll pay better attention next time. Sorry, guys.

Addison and McGee: Writing in High School / Writing in College

This article talks about the lack of expertise in student writing, the causes due to budget cuts in schools, and the large (and small) scale studies surrounding writing. They try to look at studies and trends in research and at writing across the curriculum (a recent buzz word).

The study the authors conducted was funded by the CCCC. They wrote a questionnaire and gave it to a wide range of respondents.  Not sure their sample size was enough to draw definitive conclusions, although none of the conclusions were surprising.

I will investigate the partnership between the WPA and the National Survey on Student Engagement (NSSE). It sounds like something interesting that I should be following; it's about helping students and faculty improve the undergraduate experience. I'm in! Their collaboration is called the Consortium for the Study of Writing in College.  As an aside, their website is rather ugly.

The National Commission on Writing published a study that found that poor writing skills keep workers from getting promoted. Did they not know that before the study? I didn't think that was a secret.

The ACT people sponsored a study that found that we need to improve writing studies K-12. Oh?

The NSSE did a survey and the 5 areas that were studies include:
Pre Writing
Clear Expectations
High Order Writing
Good Instructor Practices
Integrated Media
The study of these 5 areas confirm the  need for "quality writing experiences throughout the curriculum."

They also looked at genres in writing and what the students were assigned to write in college. It is debatable whether the learning is transferred from one genre to the next.

The differences in reporting on pages 158-159 between the faculty and students does not seem surprising. For example, I require more than one draft of a paper. Some students, however, turn the same exact draft in as a first draft and final draft. I wonder if that has anything to do with the discrepancy in reporting. What faculty require and what students actually do doesn't always align.

There was little surprise in the survey responses to how well students think they do and how well faculty rate them. Also, the part about grammar and mechanics being ranked better at a private Catholic girls' school than at an urban school--Who would have thought? :)

The article says professors tend to not assign workplace genres out of principle. I disagree.I think they don't assign them because they haven't worked in a workplace other than the university and aren't familiar with workplace genres. They've only read about them in books. It's the same reason I don't assign lab reports to my students, even though I know how relevant that genre is for them. I don't know how to write a "real-life" lab report.

As the authors look forward, they stress the following:
That colleges must pay attention to other forms of writing.
That NSSE and WPA collaboration should be a model for future research.
That we need to diversity types of writing assignments and foster transferrability.
That we don't necessarily need more research. We need to compile and analyse what we have and disseminate it.

Composing Research, Chapter 3

Reading Chapter 3 of Cindy Johanek’s  Composing Research: A Contextualist Paradigm for Rhetoric and Composition.   It's called “Numbers, Narratives, and He vs. She: Issues of Audience in Composition Research” on pages 56-86. Using hypothes.is to annotate. It looks like, except for Dr. Zamora's introductory post, that I am the first one there. 

So far, this reading makes me embarrassed for the researchers Johanek mentions. She talks about the fear of math and stats, and even says "our" referring to math anxiety. That's a perfect example of why NOT to use first person when writing. She is assuming too much about her readers, just because she assumes they are "composition" people. She implies that comp folks disparage, don't understand, or fear math, and then she goes further and quotes those who see it as unnecessary or as drudgery. Cringe worthy.  Seems people are angry when composition scholars use quantitative data at all. (Makes them feel stupid, insecure, maybe? So the answer is to get mad, dismiss, belittle, or complain?) Some researchers apologize for using data.  The author seems to want to address this as wrong, but isn't getting to the point very quickly.

It took me until "mode" to understand why Johanek was talking about bowling randomly in the text. She's explaining math terms like average, mode, and standard deviation. OMG.

Johanek says that some researchers acknowledged that their readers would not understand or would be fearful of the statistics in their report, but didn't offer any explanation. Is it their job to help their readers through math ignorance or anxiety? Steen calls these readers "innumerate." :) Should the authors also explain any words over three syllables to avoid alienating or angering readers who have less than adequate vocabularies?

And let's admit it: Words tell more lies than numbers do. (68) 

Shepherd's opinion on page 71 that science that doesn't include female opinion is like Nazism is ridiculous. Johanek is getting to the point that she disagrees with these wild pronouncements.

Sullivan is silly, too. She decides for me, because I am a female, what kind of research I must do. But what if I don't want to do it her way? Who is she to make rules for all? Johanek disagrees with her, too.

Storytelling. Words tell stories, and so do numbers. Both are valuable. "We should all become the best drivers we can, ready for any road" (83). She is being very careful about saying that the researchers and readers need to understand the numbers, too.

 

The author concludes by saying we need to include the feminist, understand math as a storytelling language, and accept the narrative. Well said.

Purdy and Walker's "Liminal Spaces and Research Identity"

It's always exciting to start reading one of these assignments and find that it's specifically about first year writing (FYW) in college. I'm probably the only one who gets psyched about this, but it's so relevant to my day-to-day, that I can't help but think this is awesome. This article talks about teaching research to first year students, which is exactly what I'm doing this semester, with a brand new syllabus.

I agree that students come into the course not as empty shells, but as people who already have varying degrees of research skills and expertise. We as FYW instructors have to meet them where they are and teach them to build upon the skills they already possess. We have to show them, also, that they do indeed have research skills. In my experience, most of them don't consider what they do online "research."

The article touches on the use of textbooks to guide undertrained grad students or adjuncts. I hear this type of jargon all the time. Yet, at both schools where I have taught English, it is a handful of tenured folks who do a poor job semester after semester but cannot be disposed of. Grad students and adjuncts must prove their worth every semester. Those who don't, don't get invited back. The distrust of grad students and adjuncts is misplaced. It is the tenured folks who make their own rules, attend no meetings or workshops, don't update their skills, and use the same outdated syllabus year in and year out that ruin the first year writing program. /end rant

I don't use a textbook in my class. If I did, I would use The Bedford Book of Genres published by Bedford/St. Martins. I have that book and sometimes refer to it to make my lesson plans. I don't have the students buy it.

Note to self: Check out these venues for undergraduates to publish:
-Young Scholars in Writing
-The Journal of Undergraduate Multimedia Projects (JUMP)

I agree that to tell students all research must start in the library is silly. First, it's not true, and second, it denies that they have research capabilities that they already use. Also, the stage, or linear model, is not accurate either. But how, then, do you teach a process? I had each student discuss their challenges and process in front of the class. For some students, the research process was almost linear. For others, it was recursive ad nauseum. We talked about the differences in the process for different students, and how each person ultimately got it "right" regardless of the "shape" of the process.

On pages 16 and 17 the authors make assumptions that I don't agree with. For example, when the Internet Detective writes that some web sources may be unreliable and that students should "wise up" to the web, I think that means to develop information literacy, while the authors think it means "students cannot be "wise" to the ways of the World Wide Web without replacing thieir existing practices." I think their interpretation is a stretch to support their own agenda. Further, the authors respond to Tenson by saying that she expects "students to leave behind rather than build on what they already know about navigating digital research spaces." In the text they referenced by Tenson, I did not get the impression that that was the message.

Positioning the library as the required starting place for academic work is both impractical and inaccurate

Exactly. The authors also point out that checklists, linear paths, and one-size-fits-all approaches to research don't work. Agreed.

Students are not considered as equals by the academy, and their reseach skills are not valued if they aren't those of the academy. They need to be valued as "knowledge-makers" instead of just learners. This would constitute a new identity. The discussion of "polluted and polluting" is interesting. "Narrow practices" don't allow students to think of themselves as researchers and squelch rather than encourage creativity.

The authors advocate studying students current research practices so we can create better teaching materials. Understanding student's existing skills will allow us to adapt our pedagogies to better serve students. We don't want them to abandon their skills, but rather to build upon them.