Chandler sick today - class cancelled

I'm sorry for the short notice but that is the way it goes.

I will give you feedback on your blogs over the weekend - on the set up for the analysis of the commenting papers.

If you had a conference scheduled for today - please be in touch by email so we can re-schedule.

Again - I am sorry, but you don't want to be in class with me.

For Tuesday:
Read: Gee, chapters 5-7

NO NEW BLOG POST

2.26 Teeacher comments on student writing & more on analysis

Where we've beenm where we are going. We started class with a review of where we have been and an overview of where we are going. So far, we have checked out two methods for collecting data = ethnographic participant observation, and surveys; and two methods for analyzing language data = discourse analysis (looking a connections among what language says, does and allows us to be through the use of Gee's tool), and textual analysis = which is a form of discourse of analysis, but is usually more focused on some of the textual genres you have had experience writing about for literature courses. We also noted some of the specialized "jargon" you are learning that is used by writing studies researchers.

We looked at the calendar and noted that we will be digging deeper into discourse analysis (reading more Gee), and that you will be working on a "Short analysis project". This project will require you to analyze one of the data sets we have looked at as a class. It is your chance to practice and receive feedback on your analytic process. We will set up this project next week.

I also noted that I have emailed you feedback on your research plans for your projects - and that we will be working in more detail on this project after break. If you are not clear on your plan - your question, your references, and how you will collect your data - we should talk. You should be reading your references (because that may take some time) to make sure you have the right essays for the literature review in your project.

Martin's essay. We spent the first part of class talking about Martin's essay on the rhetoric of teacher comments.

You worked in groups on the following questions:

Why does Martin say the study of teacher comments is important (where does Martin address this)What question is Martin asking about teacher comments (+ where does she set it up)?
What does the research literature say about teacher comments? (and where does Martin address this?)How does Martin connect to her review of the literature?
What are Martin’s findings (what does she add to the Conversation about commenting)?
What points does she make in her conclusions?

Most of our conversation was directed toward noticing:

• the kinds of moves Martin made in her essay
• where Martin made certain kinds of statements in her essay (in which part of which section)
• how Martin used headings

And one important purpose of this discussion was for you to think about how you would write/organize your research project. For example, we noticed that Martin used a specific focus for here discussion of the research literature of teacher comments = she organized her discussion NOT by what different researchers wrote, but by a number of categories that are characterisitic of the kinds of comments teachers write (in the subheading = teacher tendencies). This discussion connects directly to her focus on the "effecitiveness" of the differernt communication strategies (rhetorics) teachers use in their comments.

At the end of class I introduced Data Set 4 (posted to the right) = a set of 4 essays with teacher comments. The assignments usesd for these 4 different sample essays are in the blog post just previous to this one.

We looked at the blog post to next class - and then as a whole class, came up with some questions that you, as researchers, might ask about this Data set (essays with teacher comments). Your questions included:

• How do comments reflect teachers' standards for grading?
• Which comments motivate students to revise their essays (and why)? (though this question is pretty close to Martin - right?)
• How can you tell which comments are important?
• What are the differences in how the side comments and the beginning/end students work?
• What different kinds of comments do teachers write that DON'T require students to revise their work = and what is the function of those comments?

You may use one of the above questions - or one created by your group - for your post.

Groups:
Yoleiny, Rikki, Deanna
Alison, Oriana, Chris, Sharyn
Bri, Devon, Amy, Paul
Derrick, Mike, Allyson, Sarah

For next class:
We will begin class with group presentations on your set up for the analysis of Data set 4 (see Blog 11).

Blog 11: With your group - pose a new question about teacher comments. What categories + codes would you use to answer this question? What patterns do you see in our data set with respect to your new question?

For this post you will be going back to the analytic practices we used at the beginning of the term.

Codes are specific names for features, actions, interactions, "things" => anything you notice in your data.

Categories are groups of related codes.

Patterns are statements about relationships among the different features you are analyzing

For a more complete discussion, go back to the blog on analysis.

For this data set, a code might be a question, and 3 categories associated with questions might be questions about meaning and questions about organization, and questions about development. In terms of patterns, you might notice similarities or difference among questions within different categories.

Assignment sheets for Data Set 4

As a way to work with the analytic approach in Martin's essay, you will be working on essays with comments from 2 courses from our Writing Option Major, ENG 2020 and ENG 3005. Below I have listed brief descriptions of the assignments that Samples 1-4 were written for,

Samples 1 & 4: Explain a writing construct that is misunderstood.
ENG 3005

Our textbook defines constructs as “mental frameworks that people build in order to make sense of the world around them” (35). American culture contains many constructs related to writing. Writing Studies has created their own versions of these constructs. The two versions are rarely identical. Your job in this project is to bridge the gap between perceptions.

Select a construct related to writing. Some options include, but are not limited to: argument, audience, (good) writing, critical thinking, grammar, process, research, revision, rhetoric, plagiarism, literacy, voice, and style. You can choose a different term if you wish.

Write a public document (like a newspaper column or blog post) in which you explain how that construct is misinterpreted by the general public. Your essay should aim to show your reader why those misconceptions do not accurately represent the construct (at least from the perspective of Writing Studies’ scholars and teachers).

Sample 2: Process narrative.
ENG 2020
The criteria for the assignment are pasted in at the top of the paper.

Sample 3: Analysis of a Dicourse Community

ENG 3005

Description of the assignment: Choose a LITERACY Discourse community that you hope to enter for your career or for your personal goals as a writer. Collect and analyze data on that community. Then write an essay where you characterize the assumptions, values, patterns for communication, writing practices, and writing products of your discourse community. Finally, use this characterization to describe what it takes to become a successful member of this Discourse community.

What your essay should include:

1. clear statement of the features that define your group as a Discourse community
2. an in-depth characterization of your Discourse community
3. presentation of evidence (specific examples from your data) that illustrate the characteristic features of your Discourse community
4. concluding discussion of what it will take for individuals to become a member of this Discourse community

Questions about Martin

Why does Martin say the study of teacher comments is important (where does Martin address this)

What question is Martin asking about teacher comments (+ where does she set it up)?

What does the research literature say about teacher comments? (and where does Martin address this?)

How does Martin connect to her review of the literature?

What are Martin’s findings (what does she add to the Conversation about commenting)?

What points does she make in her conclusions?

2.21 Surveys

As an exercise to get some experience writing/designing surveys, you analyzed the Writing Option pre-post survey for Writing Majors. This survey is (in theory) completed by all students when they BEGIN the writing option major (at the beginning of 2020=> the first course they should tak), and when they complete the Writing Option Major (at the end of 4817). Its purpose is to give the Department an understanding of:

• what students know, feel, and can do with respect to our student learning outcomes when they enter the program
• what students know, feel, and can do with respect to our student learning outcomes when they complete the program

We started our discussion of the Writing Option Major survey by organizing which SLOs were covered by which questions (see below).

Student Learning Outcome #1: students will produce essays through a series of drafts that include exploratory writing or talk, as well as revisions that include addition, deletion, substitution and rearrangement.

1,5,7, 12,14,15,16

 

Student Learning Outcome #2: students will identify central ideas/themes of a text through class discussion and writing.

2,4,6,7,8,11, 17

Student Learning Outcome #3: students will use two or more methodologies from English Studies to develop original research or creative products.

2,4,6,7,9,15

 

Student Learning Outcome #4: students will demonstrate ability to give a compelling oral presentation.

6,7,8,10,13, 18

Student Learning Outcome #5: students will connect ideas from classroom assignments to contemporary issues in class discussion and presentations.

2,3, 8,9, 19

 

This distribution seems to indicate that the SLOs are generally covered = but you had lots to say about the survey's effectiveness in terms of its repetitiveness, languge choices, and the scale for responding to the quesitons (strongly agree ->strongly disagree).  In particular, you noted that

 

• language in questions 4,6, 12, 13, and 14 is confusing
• questions 15, 11, 4, 13, and 9 cover the 5 learning outcomes - and the rest of the questions feel confusing because they repeat them in ways that make students wonder if they are missing something
• students want to reply from a "coherent" self - soquestions 1,5,12, and 14 are all about revision, and the wording is VERY similar - and this is confusing because some answers might be conflicting
• the "emotional " component of 2, 8, & 10 seems out of place = maybe save the "feeling" questions for 16-19 (have all the emotional questions in one place)
• different answering options would allow for more accurate information (maybe yes, no, I don't know)
• put the survey in plain English
• additional areas that should have questions= questions about using technology and collaborating with other writers

So I am still taking all this in, but it occurs to me that to do a good job revising this survey, we will need a "panel" of students. Anyone interested? We can talk about this in class.

For next class:

Read: Rhetoric of Teacher Comments on Student Writing Robin Martin

Blog 10: Reflect on what our discussion of the Writing Option major survey suggests about: 1) the way language works (think about Gee); 2) what kinds of information you can collect with surveys; and 3) what challenges researchers face when desigining quantitative instruments (things that are reduced to numbers => like surveys, "objective" tests and so on).

Thanks for your great participation today.  You provided clear concise feedback that we should be able to use.  Good analytic skills!

2.19 Surveys

We started class today with a discussion of Michaela Cullington's Texting and Writing . Our talk focused on her research questions and findings, how her essay was "built" and on a critical examination of how Cullington's assumptions and methods set her up to find what she found.

Focus and organization: Cullington's research question was about how or whether texting was influencing the way high school students write, with a particular focus on the influence of "slang" and the use of acronyms. We noticed that she set up her question in her introduction and that as part of her set up she introduced the fact that there were two "sides" on the question=> that texting is making student writing "worse" and that it is making it "better". This short overview of her study concluded with her findings, which were that texting is not really having much of an effect on how students write.

After her brief introduction, Cullington presented literature review sections for describing "concerns" and a "reply to concerns" about texting.

In the concerns section, she cited researchers and teachers as concerned about grammar, the ability to write "standard English", using short, "sloppy", orundeveloped sentences and improper word choice .

In the reply to concerns, researchers pointed out how texting motivates students to do more writing, invites more creativity (is in fact a new language), teaches writers to write for different audiences, sharpens diplomatic skills, and demands that writers summarize and express themselves concisely.

This literature review was drawn to our attention by the use of headings, as were the Methods and Findings sections. In the Methods section we noted that Cullington's overall approach was to:

• survey students on 4 points: how often they text, how long they have been texting, what abbreviations they used, and whether they notice themselves using textspeak in their formal writing.
• talk to teachers (see essay for questions)
• look at student writing for influeces of textspeak

In the findings section, Cullington discussed the fact that students know the difference between writing for school and texting - and do not use textspeak in their formal writing - and that she found no instances of textspeak in student papers. Her closing statement is that "ultimately, experts and the students themselves see no influences.. ."

Critique
We noticed that when Cullington reviewed the literature (what other researchers have written) about texting and wrirting - there were two, different definitions of "writing" implied by the discussions of concerns and replies to concerns. The "concerns" researchers were primarily defining writing in terms of formal features = grammar, "standard English" and word choice; they also saw language as "transparent" => as if meanings were clearly there and a reader could "see" meaning in writing as clearly as if looking through a window.

The response to concerns researchers saw writing more in terms of the definition of language provided by Gee= writing as meaning making (where meanings are not "there" but created through interpretations of both writers and readers, and those interprestations are influenced by past experiences). This definition of writing was more about writring as "saying, doing, and being" than about wriring as "standard English." Cullington did not point out which definition of "writing" she would use in her essay => though she applied the "concerns" (standard English" definition).

This failure to see writing as language (in the ways Gee defined it) set up the kinds of questions Cullington asked. Because she saw writing as about form, and meanings as "transparent". she asked mostly about writing forms - abreviations etc - rather than about the kinds of writing practices identitifed by the "reply to concerns" researchers.

Differences between surveys and interviews:
We used our discussion of Cullington to talk about differences between surveys and interviews. Surveys ask for short, clear replies to clearly defined questions. They assume that meanings are (or can be) clear, and that the choices offered by the survey question will cover all that is important that the research participant has to say.

Interviews are more open. They assume that language is complex and interactive, and that the research subject may have multiple, conflicting things to say in response to the researcher's questions. Interviews also allow space for research subjects to say things the interviewer has not anticipated. In surveys, this is not always possible.

Creating an effective research survey.
In our review of Cullington's survey, we noticed that her conclusions reflected the kinds of questions she asked. If she had asked questions that grew out of an assumption that writing was about "saying, doing, and being" rather than about "standard English" => she may have been presented with very different kinds of information. When I asked you about how you used "texting" (and your phones) to write => you pointed out MANY ways that "texting" contributed to your writing that were simply not possible for Cullington to find out through the questions she asked.

With this in mind - I asked you to look at the Student Learning outcomes for the Writing Option program - and to consider the survey our program uses to evaluate the effectiveness of how well we teach to those outcomes.

Audience and purpose: The survey I handed out in class is given to students when they enter the Writing Option Major, and to students who have completed the Writing Option Major. It was designed to assess (evaluate) what students know, what they do, and how they feel with respect to the 5 learning outcomes for the Writing Option Major (see the last blog post).

Groups:
Allyson, Deanna, Yoleiny
Sharyn, Chris, Alison
Paul, Devon, Brianna, Amy
Mike, Oriana, Rikki, (and Sarah if you are able to get in touch)

For Thursday:
Blog 9: With your group (one post per group) do the following:
1. Identify which questions assess which learning outcomes (some questions may apply to more than one learning outcome) (For this task - you should list each of the 19 questions under one or more of the 5 learning outcomes).
2. Evaluate the effectiveness of each question in terms of what it allows students to communicate about the knowledge, feelings, and practices they might have with respect to each learning outcome. (for this task, you should produce some comments that account for WHAT information each question provides with respect to the learning outcome it is listed under, and some observations about how well it provides that information)
3. Note (make a list of) any information about the 5 learning outcomes that the Department might need = but that will NOT be gathered through these questions.

Additional questions:
What definition(s) of "writing" and "learning" is assumed by this survey?
Are those definitions a good match for the definitions assumed by the student learning outcomes? Are they a good match for the way the students taking the survey will define writing and learning?
How might you change this survey so that it could provide a more accurate reflection of what students learn in this program? List your suggestions.

As we discussed in class, Dr. Sutton and I cannot assume that our students (you) use language or draw from the same assumptions in the same ways we do. Your input on this excercise will help use develop better tools (surveys) to assess our program. Thank you!

Student Learning Outcomes for Writing Option Major

Student Learning Outcome #1: students will produce essays through a series of drafts that include exploratory writing or talk, as well as revisions that include addition, deletion, substitution and rearrangement.

Student Learning Outcome #2: students will identify central ideas/themes of a text through class discussion and writing.

Student Learning Outcome #3: students will use two or more methodologies from English Studies to develop original research or creative products.

Student Learning Outcome #4: students will demonstrate ability to give a compelling oral presentation.

Student Learning Outcome #5: students will connect ideas from classroom assignments to contemporary issues in class discussion and presentations.

2.14 Workshop on research projects

We spent today talking and working in groups to go into more depth on your research plans.  We started with some practice developing a research question (thank you, Rikki and Briana). You were invited to talk (and write) in depth about the purpose of your study (what do you want to discover/figure out?  why is that important?  how does it connect to writing studies) - and then to write a set of related questions to direct you in exploring your topic.

For next class:
We are going to spend next week looking at "sample" student research projects.  We will look at them in terms of their form + content. You can use (parts of them) as models for your projects.  They should give you both an idea of the kinds of "moves" researchers make in their essays, - and a look at some of the problems that researchers can run into with respect to the ways they design their studies.

Read: Texting and Writing  Michaela Cullington

Blog 8: Review + revise your research plan in light of the feedback you got in class.  Also - list two references that you plan to use for your literature review.

Conferences

See post 2.7 for a description of what we did in class (scroll down, or click the link in the Blog archive).

Conferences for ENG 3029

 If the times listed do not work for you, put your name at the bottom with some suggestions for when you can meet.  I will be in touch with Stepahnie, Krista, Janeida, & Sarah

Monday, February 112:30 Deanna, 2:45 Chris, 3:15 Sharrelle

Tuesday, February 12

12:15 Jillian, 1:30 Suzy, 1:45 Robert. 2:00 Mike, 2:15 Alison, 2:30 Oriana, 3:00 Allyson, 3:15 Joanna

Wednesday, Febraury 131:30 Dana, 1:45 Sharyn, 2:00 Kimberly, 2:15 Karl, 2:30 Derrick,

Thursday, February 14
2:00 Arlette,  2:45 Rikki, 3:00 Corinne, 3:15 Paul

2.7 Writing ethnographic fieldnotes

We started class by talking about Robert Emerson's Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes. He begins by pointing out that the word ethnography refers both the written text that ethnographers produce, and the ethnographic methods researchers use to gather data for ethnographies. In the discussion that follows (and the next two sections) out the two defining featuers of ethnograhies: they use participant-observation, a process where the researchers immerse themselves in the life of the group they are studying; and ethnography uses fieldnotes (writing) taken at the time of the observations as a basis for representing and reflecting the group members identities, activities, interactions, assumptions, values, beliefs and so on.

We took a close look at the three examples of "fieldnote write-ups" => the writing produced by ethnograpers to represent what happens/what they observed. We read Emerson's characterizations fo the three different perspectives on check-out lines and noted that the kinds of observations the research wrote down reflected three different perspectives: objective, subjective, and interactive.

We suggested in our talk that you as a researchers might move among these different perspectives, and that you would notice different "facts" from the different perspectives.

We also talked briefly about the problems of participant observation, particularly the inevitable fact that your presences as a researchers is going to "change" what you see. The people you are observing are goinig to behave differently because you are there. We talked briefly about whether it is possible to observe a group (ethically) without them being aware of your observations - and noted that really, unless researchers are willing to deceive or not fully inform research subjects - it is not. Because it is not possible to be a "fly on the wall," Emerson suggests that immersion coupled with noting and reflecting on how your community receives you (and how you feel about your reception) can fill out what you know about a community in ways that do not erase the effects of the observer's presence - but that can at least pay attention to and put on paper full rich descriptions of a wide range of interactions.

We then talked a little about strategies for taking notes (jottings) and how you can decide what to focus on. We noted that when you first start observing your group - you will want to note your initial impressions, and that you might take fairly "random" notes from a number of different perspectives. Through reviewing your notes and reflecting on your experiences, you will begin to get some ideas about what in particular is "important" and what you want to study. So in some sense, ethnographies start slow - you have to wade in - before you begin doing focused analysses.

After this presentation, you took ethnographic fieldnots on our class interactions. I suggested that since we knew each other, these would not be "arrival" or "first impression" notes. Rather, I suggested that you take your notes with a question in mind: is our class a Discourse community (in the sense that Branick referred to - using Swales' definition?)

And then I invited students to share what they'd written on their blogs about their research projects - and then asked the class to help them think about what methods they might use. We talked for about 15 minutes, and then you wrote up your jottings as fieldnotes and published them on Blog 5.5.

Blog 5.5: Post your ethnographic notes (these notes are Data Set 2)

For next class:

Post Blog 6: Explore the following questions in light of the evidence in notes taken by our class. Is our class a Discourse community? (Check out the definition of Discourse community in Branick). What evidence do you have in terms of "insider" ways of talking and meaning (e.g. words and patterns for talk) that are different from other classes? shared goals? genres (expectations about what "counts" as writing)? Is our class part of the larger Discourse community for "writing studies" or "being a student" or "writing majors at Kean" => but NOT a distinct Discourse community on its own? Use evidence from your fieldwork to "prove your case.

We will begin class with presentations on your answers to the question posed for Blog 6. You can draw from all of your classmates' posts (linked through the course blog) as evidence.

After the presentations - we will spend the rest of class working on a draft research plan => your plan to "do" your project. We will talk through it together, in class, and you will meet with me at your conference to work on this.

Have a great weekend - enjoy the snow!

2.5 Ethnography

NIH Training. I've got all of your certificates for NIH training=> good job!

Discourse analysis. I sent you feedback on the group post for the discourse analysis of the shaggy dog stories. As I said in class - overall you did a GREAT job. It was kind of amazing for a first analysis. Hopefully the feedback gave you some ideas for how to use Gee's tools even more effectively.

Ethnography: We used Branick's essay (sent to you as an email) to talk about ethnography, and as a way to talk about how to write an essay.

Formal features of research essays. We started by having you take a close look at Branick's essay for where (on what page => where in the essay) he stated his research question. I also asked you to look for the materials he used to "set up" his discussion of his main question, and to identify his main points (the points he developed to support/develop an answer to that question.

You correctly noted that he doesn't really state his "question" outright at the beginning of the essay.  It IS implied by his title, but most of the first part of the essay provides background material about coaching.  It isn't until he begins discussing Mirabelli's definition of literacies, on page 5 - that he sets up his question (look toward the bottom of the page).  He refers to it again in his set up to the results section on p 7, where he states, "we are studying the multiple literacies of football coaches by looking at coaching as a discourse community." From this, and the material he discussed to set up this statement, we stated his questions as: what literacy practices are part of what football coaches do? what are some of the important practices that make football coaches a Discourse community? and how are coaches literacy practices related to their effectiveness?

So => like a "regular" academic essay, in a reasearch essay we find the "thesis" at the end of the introduction. And for research essays, the introduction is often a "literature review" => the section of the essay where the writer:

1. defines important terms/ideas that will be part of the discussion in the essay=> Branick does this in by referring to Mirabelli for his definition of literacy p5
2. sets up background and connects to issues in the Conversation (what other researchers have written about what is "known" or "accepted" as important and relevant for the essay's question) Branick does this in his discussions of effective coaching p. 2-4, and of definitions of Discourse communitiesp p7.
3. Points out what or how the rest of the essay will contribute to that Conversation (what new ideas/information you will add) = Branick does this at the top of 5("scholars have yet to study a coach's ability to read his players and the game as a form of literacy"=> which is what Branick's study does.

So Branick has definitely made good use of his literature review.

Feedback we thought might give to Branick to make his essay stronger was mostly about organization

• set up the research question more specifically before introducing so much background
• define Discourse communities and multiliteracies as part of the literature review => THEN apply the term to the data (though Alison pointed out that this may not work for all introductions = that sometimes definitions/background needed to be presented WITH the research findings).
• use headings to identify key terms (such as adding a heading  like "What this study shows about coaching and literacy"or something like that, at the top of p 5

Ethnographic methods:
After discussing Branick's focus + some of the ways he set up that focus, we talked a little about ethnography - the method he used to study coaching.

What/who ethnographers study: Ethnographers study Discourse communities, identity groups, or any other group who hold sets of common assumptions, values, beliefs, practices, ways of being, and so on. We talked briefly about what makes a group.  The example from the 7-11 was meant to open up our ideas about how we might think of "identity" groups.  At first shoppers and clerks at a 7-11 might not seem like a group with shared belief systems/practices associated with shopping. But it only took 2 examples to know that there are definitely shared values, and expectations about the "right" way to shop at a 7-11. So the groups ethnographers study can be just about and collection of people who come together for a common purpose/practice - and have assumptions, values, beliefs etc associated with that purpose/practice.

Participant-observation: A central feature of ethnographic work is participant observation - which means exactly what it says. The researcher both takes part in and is present for the group activities (is an insider, in a sense) - and s/he observes, writes down (documents) what happens = so that s/he can analyze and reflect on what it means from a perspective outside and apart from the group perspective. So - ethnographers work the boundary between being a group insider - and heing an outsider.

Ethnographic data can include: field notes from participant-obseravtion (we will be reading about this for homework tonight), interviews, tape recordings, artifacts (objects or "things" that the group uses or produces), or other items produced by the group. 

We also talked (briefly) about how you might use ethnography for your projects - and what would make your method "ethnographic".

So far so good.

For next class:
Read: Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes = through the end of page 12, and come to class prepared to do some ethnography!
Blog 5:  Choose one of the (possible) research projects you have been thinking about and brainstrom the kinds of materials you would need to discuss in your introduction for a research essay on this project.

See you Thursday.