You gave your presentations on the analysis of the ethnographic notes you took as a class. The protocol for presentations was as follows.
1. identify your question
2. provide a general overview of your findings in terms of a general answer to the questions
3. list the categories of your analysis (the main ideas that organize the different points of your answer)
4. discuss the particular findings relevant to each category, including a discussion of the essential features of that category.
5. give examples from the data to support the discussion of each category
You did a great job on these presentation. In general, you are doing well at identifying the question, formulating an answer relevant to the answer, and overall general patterns (or one example) to suggest that your answer is "right". OK. So far so good. To make an analysis that really works, you will need to do some counting (how many times does the pattern you identify show up? is it a significant number of times?) => once you have identified "dominant patterns" => then do some more analysis to see if there is a feature/factor that explains why something happens sometimes, but not other times.
For example, in the presentation on what the notes showed about the social dynamics of the group, the researchers noticed both that participants asked "getting to know you" questions, and that they gravitated toward individuals they knew. This is a good observation. Some "counting" and more detailed describing to support these observations would strengthen the analytic "persuasiveness". Good work here.
At the end of class we summed up what we have learned so far, and it sounds to me like you are just about ready to try your hand at your own research project. And that's good, because we are almost there.
For next class:
Read: Data Set 3 (posted to the right)
Thursday, September 26, 2013
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
9.24 Analyzing ethngoraphic data
We spent the class analyzing your notes on the class event, We looked at the four different kinds of notes, and we analyzed (named, classified, and looked for patterns in) each of the for parts of the note taking process: jottings; headnotes; writing down later memories; and generating some observations (generalizations) about what was going on.
After noticing patterns in how the notes were constructed (their forms) and their content (what they actually said), we made a list of 10 questions that we might ask about these notes (see previous post).
You then divided into groups, and chose a particular question you would work on answering. I asked you to choose your question based on: will the data be able to provide a rich, detailed answer to this question? and are we interested in working on this question?
I'm looking forward to reading your posts!
Blog 7: Post an answer to one of the 10 questions we created in class. Support each part of your answer with evidence from the data. Evidence should take the form of examples to illustrate particular content or forms and statements about the frequency of particular particular patterns.
Examples of frequency statements. (6 out of the 10 jottings did. . . ; in the notes as a whole, professor chandler is mentioned 26 times, 10 in jottings, 5 in head notes, 10 in remembered later, and 1 in observations )(not true - you would need to count this); or far-back statements accounted for less than half of the statements in jottings, but close to 90% of statements in observations (I made this up, it is not true - it is an example of how you should be using numbers to support your claims about what the data does)
After noticing patterns in how the notes were constructed (their forms) and their content (what they actually said), we made a list of 10 questions that we might ask about these notes (see previous post).
You then divided into groups, and chose a particular question you would work on answering. I asked you to choose your question based on: will the data be able to provide a rich, detailed answer to this question? and are we interested in working on this question?
I'm looking forward to reading your posts!
Blog 7: Post an answer to one of the 10 questions we created in class. Support each part of your answer with evidence from the data. Evidence should take the form of examples to illustrate particular content or forms and statements about the frequency of particular particular patterns.
Examples of frequency statements. (6 out of the 10 jottings did. . . ; in the notes as a whole, professor chandler is mentioned 26 times, 10 in jottings, 5 in head notes, 10 in remembered later, and 1 in observations )(not true - you would need to count this); or far-back statements accounted for less than half of the statements in jottings, but close to 90% of statements in observations (I made this up, it is not true - it is an example of how you should be using numbers to support your claims about what the data does)
Research questions for ethnographic data
How does understanding how the notes will be used (having a
focus) affect the way researchers take notes?
What do these notes suggest about how beginning ethnographers
take notes?
What do these notes show about what happened in our
classroom event? What do they emphasize? What do they leave out?
How does the fact that everyone is taking notes ruin this
data as a representation of “real” ethnographic experience?
What kind of experience do these notes present?
How do the observations progress (or do they) in terms of
moving toward “theories” about what happened?
Where do the first “patterns” appear?
How/where/are they developed as we move through individual note takers’
notes? Do note takers ever undo
theories?
What do these data reveal about social dynamics in this
class?
What do these notes suggest about what students learned
about taking ethnographic fieldnotes through this exercise (how do these notes
compare to notes we read in class)? How or
did this exercise “teach” broadening the focus of attention?
What is reliable? How
can we tell what is reliable? What do
these notes teach us about reliability?
What are the different patterns for representing experience
in the different phases of note taking?
What do these patterns tell us about how our class processed the
experience? What do these patterns
suggest about thinking patterns ethnographers might want to “be careful” about?
Thursday, September 19, 2013
9.19 Finishing up discourse analysis - beginning ethnography
Conferences on research projects
We will use this conference to explore your topic and identify important background readings so you can get started on your project. The schedule of meetings is posted below. All meetings will take place in my office, CAS 324.
Monday, Sept 23: 2:15 Courtney; 2:30 Sabrina; 3:00 Debra; 3:15 Liz
Tuesday, Sept 24: 10:00 Caitlin; 10:15 Mark Bergen
Wednesday, Sept 25: 2:30 Megan;
Thursday, Sept 26: 12:15 Filip; 3:30 Marc, 4:00 Emily; 4:15 Kristina; 4:30 Angelica
If you have not yet signed up for a time - send me an email and we will work something out.
Review of discourse, Discourse, discourse analysis, and discourse communities.
You made the following observations about what you learned,
ways to analyze writing
recognize features of discourse communities
can compare features to analyze questions
use discourse analysis to explore forms of writing/ genres
techniques for using discourse analysis
language : lexis, audience, context, floor, turn-taking
can use discourse analysis to pose theories
OK - so go back over earlier posts, and think about the "moves" you have learned to name. Good job,
Ethnography
We used Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes to frame our discussion. This reading defines ethnography (more or less) as: the inscription of participatory experiences of indigenous culture represented from the perspectives of the observed culture. This definition emphasizes the participatory nature of ethnography - and the fact that it involves writing. As you re-read this material (you always re-read the assignments after our class discussions, right?), pay particular attention to the 4 consequences of this definition for writing fieldnotes. They are listed at the bottom of the fifth page, under the heading Implications for writing fieldnotes.
In our talk about ethnography we noted that:
The point of reading 3 different versions of fieldnotes documenting more or less the same kind of interactions => was to show that experience can be described from MANY different perspectives. The three representations we read were identified as having a focus on: objective/spatial relationships; an interpersonal or interactive perspective centered on the experiences of the observer; and a relational documentation of interactions between the individuals on the scene. No one representation captures the "truth" => each kind of representation provides a different window on "what happened".
Your ethnographic happening
We spent the last part of class doing an interactive ethnographic exercise. Everyone was asked to get up out of their seats and come to the middle aisle, and talk to people - particularly people they did not know. And you were asked to take "jottings" = quick, shorthand notes to help you remember - in as much detail as possible - what happened.
The "event" lasted about 8 minutes. I then asked you to go to your seats and add your headnotes to your jottings. While you were writing - we made a list on the board of some of the kinds of "details" you might include in your notes:
For next class:
Read: (again) Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes up through the sections on jottings
Blog 6: Post your ethnographic notes. ALL of them - your jottings, your head notes - everything you wrote down and all that you can remember about the in-class exercise. Label your notes. There should be 4 categories: jottings, headnotes, things I remembered later, and observations about what happened.
In class next Tuesday we will analyze our notes on the in-class ethnographicevent. You will first define a question, or a problem, you want to use this data to explore. Then you will name and classify the different elements in the notes, notice patterns, and pose and test theories relevant to your question/problem. We will talk more about how to do this in class.
We will use this conference to explore your topic and identify important background readings so you can get started on your project. The schedule of meetings is posted below. All meetings will take place in my office, CAS 324.
Monday, Sept 23: 2:15 Courtney; 2:30 Sabrina; 3:00 Debra; 3:15 Liz
Tuesday, Sept 24: 10:00 Caitlin; 10:15 Mark Bergen
Wednesday, Sept 25: 2:30 Megan;
Thursday, Sept 26: 12:15 Filip; 3:30 Marc, 4:00 Emily; 4:15 Kristina; 4:30 Angelica
If you have not yet signed up for a time - send me an email and we will work something out.
Review of discourse, Discourse, discourse analysis, and discourse communities.
You made the following observations about what you learned,
ways to analyze writing
recognize features of discourse communities
can compare features to analyze questions
use discourse analysis to explore forms of writing/ genres
techniques for using discourse analysis
language : lexis, audience, context, floor, turn-taking
can use discourse analysis to pose theories
OK - so go back over earlier posts, and think about the "moves" you have learned to name. Good job,
Ethnography
We used Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes to frame our discussion. This reading defines ethnography (more or less) as: the inscription of participatory experiences of indigenous culture represented from the perspectives of the observed culture. This definition emphasizes the participatory nature of ethnography - and the fact that it involves writing. As you re-read this material (you always re-read the assignments after our class discussions, right?), pay particular attention to the 4 consequences of this definition for writing fieldnotes. They are listed at the bottom of the fifth page, under the heading Implications for writing fieldnotes.
In our talk about ethnography we noted that:
- ethnographers need to participate in the culture they are studying in order to understand how that culture works - even though they may never really be insiders;
- that writing (documenting) culture is central to ethnography;
- that ethnographers' presence/participation will necessarily change what it is possible to observe (just by the fact of their being there);
- and that ethnographers interpretations of what participants' culture "means" - will reflect the ethnographer's assumptions (which may not be shared by participants).
The point of reading 3 different versions of fieldnotes documenting more or less the same kind of interactions => was to show that experience can be described from MANY different perspectives. The three representations we read were identified as having a focus on: objective/spatial relationships; an interpersonal or interactive perspective centered on the experiences of the observer; and a relational documentation of interactions between the individuals on the scene. No one representation captures the "truth" => each kind of representation provides a different window on "what happened".
Your ethnographic happening
We spent the last part of class doing an interactive ethnographic exercise. Everyone was asked to get up out of their seats and come to the middle aisle, and talk to people - particularly people they did not know. And you were asked to take "jottings" = quick, shorthand notes to help you remember - in as much detail as possible - what happened.
The "event" lasted about 8 minutes. I then asked you to go to your seats and add your headnotes to your jottings. While you were writing - we made a list on the board of some of the kinds of "details" you might include in your notes:
- where people were standing, who was in which group, how people moved among groups, the overall configuration of the groups in the room
- who talked to whom, short quotes of what people said, the sequence of talk, the overall focus of conversation, silences, laughing, questions, talk inside and outside your group, people leaving and joining groups, language choices
- Chandler's role in the "event", what she said, where she stood, what she did, tone of voice, how comments were received, silences, interruptions
- what people were doing, how they were taking notes, composure, eye-contact, who took part
- the "feeling" of the room, the noise level, the way talk sounded overall
- what people were wearing, facial expressions, body language, distances between speakers
When we summed up, you pointed out that the talk was "awkward" at the beginning and got more comfortable. That is probably true - but the point of ethnographic observation is to IDENTIFY THE FEATURES of what happened that SHOW (PROVE) that that is an accurate interpretation of what happened.
For next class:
Read: (again) Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes up through the sections on jottings
Blog 6: Post your ethnographic notes. ALL of them - your jottings, your head notes - everything you wrote down and all that you can remember about the in-class exercise. Label your notes. There should be 4 categories: jottings, headnotes, things I remembered later, and observations about what happened.
In class next Tuesday we will analyze our notes on the in-class ethnographicevent. You will first define a question, or a problem, you want to use this data to explore. Then you will name and classify the different elements in the notes, notice patterns, and pose and test theories relevant to your question/problem. We will talk more about how to do this in class.
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
9.17 Analyzing the features of discourse communicties - and thinking about ethnography
You have all turned in your NIH training certificates - though I may need to be in touch with some of you to make sure I can access the certificates (I haven't yet tried to paste them in to the record of your certificates I have to provide for the Kean Institutional Review Board).
IRB approval for our projects. As I said in class, I have turned in a proposal to the Kean IRB regarding your projects. This proposal describes what kinds of projects you will do in a general way, provides sample permission forms + debriefing forms (posted to the right) and gives them our class roster. The IRB committee will meet next week and we will know whether we are approved soon after. I expect we will be approved for you to begin collecting data by the middle of October.
Using Swales definition of discourse communities to do research.
You provided your analyses of whether/how the 4 discourse communities we identified in class fit with Swales' definition. Our method was to do an in-depth analysis (the work you did to post your blogs). The "expert" group gave their findings and then the whole class voted to rank how/whether each group met each criterion for a discourse community. These are our findings
Blog 5: In our discussion we put out the "theories" that small groups might cohere more readily as discourse communities than big groups. What else might we "theorize' from this data? How would we test those theories? Is there one Swale's categories that this table suggests is more critical for being a discourse community than others - or that groups tend to have trouble achieving? What other data would we need to collect to see if this data is "true" or if the patterns it suggest are useful?
Do these findings agree with your intuitive feeling about which of these groups is a more coherent discourse community? Or do they suggest that there is something wrong with Swales definition?
Again - you do not need to answer every question - but your post does need to develop a discussion that applies what we are learning about doing analysis and about discourse communities.
We spent a very short time at the end of class talking about the ethnographic essay. Your suggestions about how to strengthen this essay were to:
Language as saying, doing and being.
In the middle of all this talk I gave you a mini-lecture on the terminology linguists use to talk about discourse. This is useful because it gives you some of the names (categories) that language researchers often draw from when they do discourse analysis (analysis of language in use). I asked you to jot down some of the moves you made to create your identity as a student. This is the list you created:
politeness
talkative
quiet
aware of audience
openness
talk about taboo material
raise hand
call out
Language linguists use to talk about these moves include: turn taking or "turns" and floor time. To be continued.
For next class:
Read: Excerpts from Fieldnotes (posted to the right) as pointed out in class. Pay particular attention to the definition of ethnography, the examples of fieldnotes, and the sample jottings.
Blog 5: see above
In class we will talk about taking ethnographic fieldnotes - and if we don't talk to much - you will get your first experience doing ethnography.
IRB approval for our projects. As I said in class, I have turned in a proposal to the Kean IRB regarding your projects. This proposal describes what kinds of projects you will do in a general way, provides sample permission forms + debriefing forms (posted to the right) and gives them our class roster. The IRB committee will meet next week and we will know whether we are approved soon after. I expect we will be approved for you to begin collecting data by the middle of October.
Using Swales definition of discourse communities to do research.
You provided your analyses of whether/how the 4 discourse communities we identified in class fit with Swales' definition. Our method was to do an in-depth analysis (the work you did to post your blogs). The "expert" group gave their findings and then the whole class voted to rank how/whether each group met each criterion for a discourse community. These are our findings
|
Swales Features
|
Kean
|
English Writing Maj.
|
Ed maj
|
ENG 3029
|
|
1.
|
2.5
|
4
|
4.5
|
5
|
|
2.
|
3.5
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
3.
|
3
|
2
|
1.5
|
4
|
|
4.
|
4.5
|
3.5
|
4.5
|
4
|
|
5.
|
5
|
4.5
|
5
|
5
|
|
6.
|
4.5
|
4.5
|
3.5
|
4
|
|
Overall
|
23
|
20.5
|
22
|
26
|
Blog 5: In our discussion we put out the "theories" that small groups might cohere more readily as discourse communities than big groups. What else might we "theorize' from this data? How would we test those theories? Is there one Swale's categories that this table suggests is more critical for being a discourse community than others - or that groups tend to have trouble achieving? What other data would we need to collect to see if this data is "true" or if the patterns it suggest are useful?
Do these findings agree with your intuitive feeling about which of these groups is a more coherent discourse community? Or do they suggest that there is something wrong with Swales definition?
Again - you do not need to answer every question - but your post does need to develop a discussion that applies what we are learning about doing analysis and about discourse communities.
We spent a very short time at the end of class talking about the ethnographic essay. Your suggestions about how to strengthen this essay were to:
- state the focus more clearly at the beginning of the essay
- use the focus to organize + develop the essay (delete material not relevant to focus)
- the overall organization was mostly good in that each section made the right moves - but the internal organization of the sections needed work. Also, the author needed to delete some material + develop other material.
- write a stronger conclusion that is more specifically connected to the findings and the focus
Language as saying, doing and being.
In the middle of all this talk I gave you a mini-lecture on the terminology linguists use to talk about discourse. This is useful because it gives you some of the names (categories) that language researchers often draw from when they do discourse analysis (analysis of language in use). I asked you to jot down some of the moves you made to create your identity as a student. This is the list you created:
politeness
talkative
quiet
aware of audience
openness
talk about taboo material
raise hand
call out
Language linguists use to talk about these moves include: turn taking or "turns" and floor time. To be continued.
For next class:
Read: Excerpts from Fieldnotes (posted to the right) as pointed out in class. Pay particular attention to the definition of ethnography, the examples of fieldnotes, and the sample jottings.
Blog 5: see above
In class we will talk about taking ethnographic fieldnotes - and if we don't talk to much - you will get your first experience doing ethnography.
Friday, September 13, 2013
9.12 Discourse analysis and discourse communities (Swales)
Reminder: NIH Certificates due next class.
Analysis of shaggy dog stories. We started class with your presentations on the shaggy dog stories. Each group took a slightly different perspective, and you all found different sets of "essential" features for the stories. These presentations were WONDERFUL. You are clearly getting the idea of analysis. Your work to name and classify the different "moves" in the stories, and then to classify them again (by identifying which features were common to all the stories) is exactly the same process language researchers use when they identify genres, group identities, contextual language practices (like "getting to know you: talk, or classroom talk) - and it is the process Swales used to arrive at the features to define discourse communities.
Swales. We talked about Swales from two different perspectives. First we looked at how his essay was organized. And then we applied/tried out his "findings" to see how they corresponded with 4 (possible) discourse communities: Kean students; writing studies majors; education majors; and our class.
Organization of Swales essay. I asked you to notice the different moves the essay makes (as a way of identifying where the information you are going to need is located). You already know how to do this - so very quickly you identified:
1. an introductory section (about 20% of the essay's total length) where he states what other researchers have done and points out what he will add to this "conversation" (distinguish between speech + discourse community & define discourse community),
2. a long middle section (about 60%) where he gives is data/presents his "findings"/makes his point,
3.(I gave you this information, since you didn't have this part of the essay in your copy) a (surprisingly long) conclusion (about 20%) - which was in my text but was not part of your assigned reading.
Swales essay presents one pattern for writing about writing studies research. Important consideration for you: does this essay include primary data? Where would you put your primary data if you used this form? How much "space" should your data take?
Analysis of possible discourse communitis:
Kean students: Dina, Filip, Megan, Mark
English majors: Angie, Caitlin, Sabrina, Ashley
Education majors: Emily, Liz, Kristine
Our class: Marc, Debra, Courtney, Jayme
For next class:
Read: "Coaches Can Read, Too" by Sean Branick
We will start class with your presentations on your analysis, and then we will talk about Branick. I suggested that as you read Branick, you think about whether/how he used Swales features of a discourse community, how/whether this worked as a writing studies project, and what suggestions you would give this writer for strengthening his essay.
Analysis of shaggy dog stories. We started class with your presentations on the shaggy dog stories. Each group took a slightly different perspective, and you all found different sets of "essential" features for the stories. These presentations were WONDERFUL. You are clearly getting the idea of analysis. Your work to name and classify the different "moves" in the stories, and then to classify them again (by identifying which features were common to all the stories) is exactly the same process language researchers use when they identify genres, group identities, contextual language practices (like "getting to know you: talk, or classroom talk) - and it is the process Swales used to arrive at the features to define discourse communities.
Swales. We talked about Swales from two different perspectives. First we looked at how his essay was organized. And then we applied/tried out his "findings" to see how they corresponded with 4 (possible) discourse communities: Kean students; writing studies majors; education majors; and our class.
Organization of Swales essay. I asked you to notice the different moves the essay makes (as a way of identifying where the information you are going to need is located). You already know how to do this - so very quickly you identified:
1. an introductory section (about 20% of the essay's total length) where he states what other researchers have done and points out what he will add to this "conversation" (distinguish between speech + discourse community & define discourse community),
2. a long middle section (about 60%) where he gives is data/presents his "findings"/makes his point,
3.(I gave you this information, since you didn't have this part of the essay in your copy) a (surprisingly long) conclusion (about 20%) - which was in my text but was not part of your assigned reading.
Swales essay presents one pattern for writing about writing studies research. Important consideration for you: does this essay include primary data? Where would you put your primary data if you used this form? How much "space" should your data take?
Analysis of possible discourse communitis:
Kean students: Dina, Filip, Megan, Mark
English majors: Angie, Caitlin, Sabrina, Ashley
Education majors: Emily, Liz, Kristine
Our class: Marc, Debra, Courtney, Jayme
For next class:
Read: "Coaches Can Read, Too" by Sean Branick
Blog 4: post your analysis of your (possible) discourse community. Make sure to account for each of the 6 features. Give examples for each feature to support your analysis (e.g. examples of what the "public goals" are and how they are made public, what the genres for communication are, ways the group makes the genres their own, the language particular to the group , etc.)
We will start class with your presentations on your analysis, and then we will talk about Branick. I suggested that as you read Branick, you think about whether/how he used Swales features of a discourse community, how/whether this worked as a writing studies project, and what suggestions you would give this writer for strengthening his essay.
Have a good weekend!
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
9.10 Introduction to discourse analysis (Shaggy dog stories)
You all posted great blogs! I will give you comments on Blogs 2 (analysis) and 3 (the group post on the shaggy dog stories) before class next Tuesday. I read the list of turned in NIH certificates - everyone needs to have their certificate turned in for Sept 17.
Discourse. We started class with a discussion of discourse. The simple definition is language and use - which seems simple enough, but once we start thinking about the elements or components which shape how we use language -it gets pretty interesting. In quick succession you identified 4 key features relevant to language in use:
the forms language takes
the identities, beliefs, values, everyday experiences of people who write/speak/enact it
the identities etc of people who make meanings (interpret/hear/read) it
the contexts (places) which surround and influence how language is used
Discourse analysis looks at these features: forms/users/audience/context - looks for relationships among them, uses those relationships to identify patterns => and then poses theories about how language "works" in terms of those theories, patterns and correlations.
I pointed out that all of you are experts at discourse analysis - you make personal (local) theories about what it means when language is used in certain ways all the time. You identify who will make a likely friend (and who to avoid), which teachers will teach their courses in ways that work for you, what people are interested in or "good" at = all by analyzing the ways they talk. It is not only what they say - but how they say it that you take in and analyze to come to your conclusions.
So you already know how to do discourse analysis - in an automatic, half conscious kind of way. What we will do in this class is learn to identify the steps. We will apply the language of analysis - naming, categorizing, looking for patterns & testing relationships & theories - to discourse.
Shaggy Dog Stories.
Before we started our formal analysis, you shared some of your impressions of what the stories did.
endings make everything in the story come together or make sense
Then we analyzed the first Shaggy Dog Story - the one about florist friars. We made a general list of some of the "features" that we noticed that:
1. stories start out rational (innocent)
2. then build to the ending
3. readers need cultural knowledge to "get" the joke in terms of
the punchline
what a friar is
why "MacTaggart" would be a likely name for a bully ( this is a Scottish name - in NJ the cliché would be to expect an Italian name - right? so why Scottish?)
4. the punchline sounds like a garbled version of a famous phrase
5. the punchline elements are set up VERY early in the joke (except HUGH which is more toward the end)
6. punchline elements are repeated & emphasized
7. gives clues to the listener that it is a joke (the line about asking the mother to speak to the priests)
8. formal language - connects to storytelling (as if a narrator is telling it)
9. rule of three
After we finished analyzing the Florist Friars joke, you worked on the following tasks:
Write a list of features of what makes a shaggy dog story a shaggy dog story.
2. Identify (name & list) their features
3. State which features all 4 jokes have in common.
The features which all shaggy dog stories have in common will be the "essential" features of shaggy dog stories. The features which some have & some don't have - will be variants or variations on the general pattern.
My observation of your group work indicated that you all are making good progress on this.
During the last 10 minutes of class I introduced the reading by Swales. I asked you:
For next class:
Read: Swales (link to right)
Write: Blog 3: group post discussing your findings about the essential features of shaggy dog stories. Post your analysis (the names of the features in the four jokes), the essential features, and the variants.
Good work today! And we will talk about Swales and discourse communities in our next class.
Discourse. We started class with a discussion of discourse. The simple definition is language and use - which seems simple enough, but once we start thinking about the elements or components which shape how we use language -it gets pretty interesting. In quick succession you identified 4 key features relevant to language in use:
the forms language takes
the identities, beliefs, values, everyday experiences of people who write/speak/enact it
the identities etc of people who make meanings (interpret/hear/read) it
the contexts (places) which surround and influence how language is used
Discourse analysis looks at these features: forms/users/audience/context - looks for relationships among them, uses those relationships to identify patterns => and then poses theories about how language "works" in terms of those theories, patterns and correlations.
I pointed out that all of you are experts at discourse analysis - you make personal (local) theories about what it means when language is used in certain ways all the time. You identify who will make a likely friend (and who to avoid), which teachers will teach their courses in ways that work for you, what people are interested in or "good" at = all by analyzing the ways they talk. It is not only what they say - but how they say it that you take in and analyze to come to your conclusions.
So you already know how to do discourse analysis - in an automatic, half conscious kind of way. What we will do in this class is learn to identify the steps. We will apply the language of analysis - naming, categorizing, looking for patterns & testing relationships & theories - to discourse.
Shaggy Dog Stories.
Before we started our formal analysis, you shared some of your impressions of what the stories did.
endings make everything in the story come together or make sense
- the storytelling has significant development
- there are repetitions
- a new twist appears at the end
- the audience needs some prior knowledge in order to "get" the joke = something that is OUTSIDE the joke itself
Then we analyzed the first Shaggy Dog Story - the one about florist friars. We made a general list of some of the "features" that we noticed that:
1. stories start out rational (innocent)
2. then build to the ending
3. readers need cultural knowledge to "get" the joke in terms of
the punchline
what a friar is
why "MacTaggart" would be a likely name for a bully ( this is a Scottish name - in NJ the cliché would be to expect an Italian name - right? so why Scottish?)
4. the punchline sounds like a garbled version of a famous phrase
5. the punchline elements are set up VERY early in the joke (except HUGH which is more toward the end)
6. punchline elements are repeated & emphasized
7. gives clues to the listener that it is a joke (the line about asking the mother to speak to the priests)
8. formal language - connects to storytelling (as if a narrator is telling it)
9. rule of three
After we finished analyzing the Florist Friars joke, you worked on the following tasks:
Write a list of features of what makes a shaggy dog story a shaggy dog story.
To do this, you will need to:
1. Analyze all the jokes2. Identify (name & list) their features
3. State which features all 4 jokes have in common.
The features which all shaggy dog stories have in common will be the "essential" features of shaggy dog stories. The features which some have & some don't have - will be variants or variations on the general pattern.
My observation of your group work indicated that you all are making good progress on this.
During the last 10 minutes of class I introduced the reading by Swales. I asked you:
- to note the form and the content in this article.
- to write down any terms/words/ideas you found confusing or hard and mention them in class
- to pay attention to Herzberg's definition of discourse
- to think about the differences between speech and language communities
- and to pay particular attention to Swales six features of discourse communities.
For next class:
Read: Swales (link to right)
Write: Blog 3: group post discussing your findings about the essential features of shaggy dog stories. Post your analysis (the names of the features in the four jokes), the essential features, and the variants.
Good work today! And we will talk about Swales and discourse communities in our next class.
Thursday, September 5, 2013
9.5 Analysis!
I think I have everyone's blog up who has sent me one. If I have spelled your name wrong or missed you - please let me know. I will be writing some comments to you for Blog 1 before next class.
This is REALLY long post = but think of it this way: I haven't assigned you readings in a text book!
Analysis: Slowing it down + naming what we do as we think.
You worked in groups to solve a particular "brain teaser." I asked you to pay attention to, and to name the different moves you made as you tried to solve the puzzle = and you did (and you were awesome). After each group had worked their way through to an answer (which was pretty amazing) you made a list of the steps you took & we wrote them on the board. The list below is a generalized summary of what you noticed yourselves doing. As you read through = pay attention to the language.
Theories often are connected to patterns that you already know. For example, most of you "read" the puzzle from right to left (for different reasons) and from top to bottom (either because of spreadsheets, or because that is the way we read in western culture, some of you connected to the 3X3 matrices of sudokus, and some of you tried columns).
If the theory didn't FIT (explain what you could see) and WORK (allow you to generate or extend the data further by predicting the pattern) - you decided the theory was wrong - and cycled back through the steps - re-thinking the names and groupings and patterns that you had already tried. You might even need to go back and re-define the problem.
This is all true. And if we focus on the effects of working with a group, we notice that it was probably more interesting, less frustrating, and easier to work on the problem for a longer period of time because you were working with a team. So = we are going to be a team this semester. It is the BEST way to do research.
For next class:
Read: Data Set 1: Shaggy Dog Stories
This is REALLY long post = but think of it this way: I haven't assigned you readings in a text book!
Analysis: Slowing it down + naming what we do as we think.
In today's class we worked on analysis. We started out by making a list of some of the words you used to describe what you do when you do analysis. These were all good general descriptions for analysis - but most of them like "researching" or "thinking" were complex proceses with lots of steps. Our work this today was to pay close attention to our thinking processes so we could name the different steps we took as we engaged in analytic process.
You worked in groups to solve a particular "brain teaser." I asked you to pay attention to, and to name the different moves you made as you tried to solve the puzzle = and you did (and you were awesome). After each group had worked their way through to an answer (which was pretty amazing) you made a list of the steps you took & we wrote them on the board. The list below is a generalized summary of what you noticed yourselves doing. As you read through = pay attention to the language.
Analytic process for solving the puzzle.
1. DEFINE the problem/question you are solving (identify the problem/question)
This step included ORIENTING to the data (deciding the perspective or focus for your analysis). In this case - looking at the picture with the question right side up, and reading right to left, and down the page, was the easiest orientation.
Idenfityand name what counts as DATA (information relevant to your problem/question) = in this problem relevant data were features of the shapes, as well as information about their sequence. This is part of the next step.
2. Name = noticing the FEATURES in your data that are significant to your problem
You notice that there were different shapes
That some of the shapes were oriented differently
That the shapes were different colors
Before you could talk in your group about patterns or how the problem worked you needed to NAME the features of your data
3. CATEGORIZE= put data with similar FEATURES into groups
Categories
= groups of things with shared features
This was a beginning step for looking for a patterns
This step sometimes included counting the members of a category (how many of each kind of shape/color/orientation) and it sometimes included noticing local groups or clusters (like the groups of two symbols of the same kind).
Looking at a local group (just part of the problem) is called BRACKETING = like putting [around part of the problem] so you can concentrate on a smaller, more manageable piece of data. I think every group made important progress through looking at small, local groupings as a way to predict what other local groupings would be.
4. Look for patterns
In this step you used the names and groups you identified as ways to talk about repetitions, cycles and larger sequences.
You identified lots of different local patterns = which shapes ALWAYS went together, or the order in which shapes followed one another.
To develop different patterns - your looked at the puzzle from different ORIENTATIONS, and you also BRACKETED off sections so you could just look at part of the puzzle at a time
5. Pose local theories
Once you noticed a pattern in color, or sequence, or grouping - you formed an idea of what that pattern might look like if it were true for the whole puzzle. The idea of what a pattern would look like when it applies to ALL your data is a theory.
Others noticed that there was a black shape in every row but the last one, and guessed the club (which is the right answer) => but the wrong reason. There is also a diamond in every row but the last one => the REAL answer is about the sequence of the shapes (a BIG theory). Some of you theorized that the club occurred next because of the sequence (which shapes were always on either side of the upside down club)=> this was the right LOCAL theory, but it was not a GLOBAL theory (one that could account for all the data - and predict what would happen with additional data.
6. Test your theories!
Once you had a local theory (about two shapes always following each other, or being above each other, or about the color distribution) you tested your theory by checking to see if the pattern you identified applied to the WHOLE puzzle.
If the theory didn't FIT (explain what you could see) and WORK (allow you to generate or extend the data further by predicting the pattern) - you decided the theory was wrong - and cycled back through the steps - re-thinking the names and groupings and patterns that you had already tried. You might even need to go back and re-define the problem.
7. Use local theory to pose BIG/GLOBAL theory (to explain the whole system)
Once you found a theory that seemed to fit and work for part of the puzzle - the next step is to see if you can use your theory to predict what would happen in new situations. For this puzzle - the correct answer allows you to name the right "shape" at any point in the series.
Reflections on our work together: In addition to observing these steps (and writing them down -good work!), we noticed that this process was not linear. As we pointed out at the beginning of the exercise - thinking is messy, it doesn't go in a straight line. You cycled through these processes, sometimes jumping from one to another. For example, you might have posed a local theory, found that it didn't "work" and then gone back to identifying features to figure out why the theory didn't work. This new consideration of features then might lead you to different categories. And so on.
As explained in class, the purpose of doing this exercise was for us to analyze(!) analytic process => and you certainly did that. You now have language (and a process)
- to identify and name the "features" of analytic process,
- to put those features into categories,
- and to pose a theory about relationships among those categories that can "explain" how analysis works.
So that's what we did.
WHY SLOWING DOWN AND NAMING ANALYTIC PROCESS IS IMPORTANT.
1. Researchers need names and categories to communicate about analysis so that they can share their thinking/analyses to others. This is important both in talking and in writing. This exercise drew your attention to some of the names researchers use as they talk about analysis (DATA, NAMING, FEATURES, CATEGORIZING, LOCAL THEORY, FIT & WORK, etc).
2. Awareness of research process allows us to "prove" our answers. Without conscious awareness of how to do analysis, we tend to fall back on "intuitive" patterns for thinking. These ways of thinking are generally "quick & dirty" = meaning they give you a rapid insight with a usable answer. This thinking takes place rapidly - and you often don't know how you got your answer - so you won't be able to "prove" it.
3. Complex research problems/questions can feel overwhelming if you do not consciously "know the moves" to work through analysis. Because our analytic process is mostly "automatic" - when we are faced with a problem we aren't familiar with, or a question that has many, many different ways to think about answers - our automatic approaches don't have something familiar (from our experience) to latch onto.
We spent some time at the very end of class applying the analytic process to a question about communication dynamics in class. By naming what we remembered as happening in class (Naming) and observing patterns (noticing what happens when teachers and students talk in certain ways) - we were on our way to pose theories about how teachers might improve (or at least do something different) talk in the classroom.
As a final step in this process, we reflected - as a group - on the effects of doing analysis as a team.
You noticed that:
- people do analysis differently - they bring different backgrounds and talents to the problem and have different experiences to draw from
- much of problem solving is working backward
- doing something and reflecting on it at the same time is hard
- group members have different take
This is all true. And if we focus on the effects of working with a group, we notice that it was probably more interesting, less frustrating, and easier to work on the problem for a longer period of time because you were working with a team. So = we are going to be a team this semester. It is the BEST way to do research.
For next class:
Read: Data Set 1: Shaggy Dog Stories
Blog 2: (and please label this post as Blog 2)
1)
in your own words => boil down all that writing from this long post and define analysis.
What is it? How does it work?
2) Describe how you might use analysis in one
of the research projects you described for your first blog (or a different project if you don't like any of the ideas you came up with for the first post).
These are some useful questions to think about when planning how to analyze a project. Your blog post doesn't need to answer all of them = they are hear to give you something to write into.
What kinds of questions might you ask?
What might you notice/look for?
What kinds of surrounding circumstances, actions, actors,
interactions, outcomes etc might it be useful to name?
GREAT CLASS - and I am looking forward to seeing you on Tuesday!
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
9.3 Writing studies research, critical analysis and setting up a blog
Thanks for the great class today. As you can see I have edited the site to include the links to your blogs - and some of you have already posted! I will provide you some feedback on how you are doing as a blog poster so far - hopefully before class on Thursday.
Today we got through the introductions so that I have faces for the names on my roster, each of you talked a little about what you are doing in school and what you want to do with writing. Looks like we have a great class - a mix of education majors and some writing majors - so we should be able to learn from each other.
NIH Certificates. I pointed out the link to the NIH assignment - the due date on the assignment sheet is incorrect. It is due September 17, as listed on the course calendar. If you have already completed NIH training for another course - you may send that certificate. Make sure to send an IMAGE of the certificate (I cannot get into your account through the link, and the number is not sufficient evidence of training).
We spent the last part of class creating blogs. You will post to your blog after every class and you earn 250 points for those posts (about 10 points a post, with a few missed blogs for free because there are more than 25 classes). Blog posts are a great place for taking chances, putting out ideas for feedback, and raising questions. See the syllabus for the criteria for evaluation.
I think that about covers it for today.
For next class:
SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR BLOG (if you haven't already)
Work on the NIH training (if you haven't already completed it).
Review the syllabus + calendar and let me know if you have further questions (we kind of ran out of time).
Blog 1: What kind of writing studies research do you think you might be interested in?
Today we got through the introductions so that I have faces for the names on my roster, each of you talked a little about what you are doing in school and what you want to do with writing. Looks like we have a great class - a mix of education majors and some writing majors - so we should be able to learn from each other.
NIH Certificates. I pointed out the link to the NIH assignment - the due date on the assignment sheet is incorrect. It is due September 17, as listed on the course calendar. If you have already completed NIH training for another course - you may send that certificate. Make sure to send an IMAGE of the certificate (I cannot get into your account through the link, and the number is not sufficient evidence of training).
We spent the last part of class creating blogs. You will post to your blog after every class and you earn 250 points for those posts (about 10 points a post, with a few missed blogs for free because there are more than 25 classes). Blog posts are a great place for taking chances, putting out ideas for feedback, and raising questions. See the syllabus for the criteria for evaluation.
I think that about covers it for today.
For next class:
SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR BLOG (if you haven't already)
Work on the NIH training (if you haven't already completed it).
Review the syllabus + calendar and let me know if you have further questions (we kind of ran out of time).
Blog 1: What kind of writing studies research do you think you might be interested in?
Monday, September 2, 2013
9.2.13 First day of class
Welcome to ENG 3029!
As you can see, I have left the posts and the blogs from last term. If you like - you can look through them to get a feel for how the class will go.
As it says on the syllabus (posted under course documents to the right), we will use this blog as a kind of "hub" for course communications. After each class I will post an update of what we did - and the assignment for what to do for the next class. To do well in this class - you will want to check the blog after every class. If it is more than 24 hours after class and I have not yet posted the update - I am hoping one of you will do me the favor of sending me a reminder! I am very human and I will make mistakes. One advantage of a blog is that it can be more interactive. That can work to all of our advantages if we work together.
So we will see how this goes. . . .
As you can see, I have left the posts and the blogs from last term. If you like - you can look through them to get a feel for how the class will go.
As it says on the syllabus (posted under course documents to the right), we will use this blog as a kind of "hub" for course communications. After each class I will post an update of what we did - and the assignment for what to do for the next class. To do well in this class - you will want to check the blog after every class. If it is more than 24 hours after class and I have not yet posted the update - I am hoping one of you will do me the favor of sending me a reminder! I am very human and I will make mistakes. One advantage of a blog is that it can be more interactive. That can work to all of our advantages if we work together.
So we will see how this goes. . . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)