5.1 More presentations

Tonight's class finished off the presenting/collaborating/soliciting feedback process for your final projects.  If you get stuck or find you do not have enough material to move forward - be in touch with me or your classmates. 

Projects will be due May 13 by noon. 

How to turn in your work.
All evidence of your data collection (in most cases this will be the transcript, and it is already available on the site), data analysis, and writing process should be posted as word documents on your file cabinet page on the transcripts site.  Title the documents with your last name, what the document is, and its sequence in the analysis/drafting process. 

For example, my third time through data (where I might have sections of transcripts with highlighted or annotated sections to point out features I am interested in) would be submitted as ChandlerData3.   If I developed drafts for my paper in sections, I might title files  ChandlerDraftIntro2, or ChandlerDraftAnalysis3, etc.
The idea is to provide organized evidence of your writing process.  I am assuming all it should take is titling already existing files and browsing them up to the file cabinet page.

Your final project should be titled ChandlerFinal - only with your name.

What we will do on the last day of class
In addition to responding to any last minute requests for workshopping, feedback, and or other support, we will revisit the list of language assumptions that we discussed early in the term. 

If there is time, I also hope to spend some time writing/reflecting about where you might go, what you might want to do with the tools/ideas/practices we studied this term, and do some group brainstorming about what worked (or not) in the course.

See you next week!

4.24 Presentations

At the beginning of class we finished the discussion of how points will be allocated for work throughout the term.

500 points for notes from participation, presentations on theorists,  in-class "experiments",  contributions to class data base (including the oral history, pre-/post class data, replies to questionnaires, writing to prompts etc); presentations on your projects, and contributions/suggestions to classmates during the workshopping process.

500 points for the final project to be allocated among the 3 areas defined on the assignment sheet as follows:
Final essay: 100
Data + analysis:  300
Writing process: 100

Location of data/analysis for your project:
I asked that you use the invitation-only data site as a repository for your in-process analysis, data

Presenatations: Mary, Robyn, Heather, and Luis presented an overview of their projects.  I sent my notes to individual presenters, and in-class comments on identifying/re-stating focus, selecting a method for anlaysis, connecting to the research literature, and pointing out the importance to writing studies were thoughtful and well-stated.  Thanks for your good participation.

4.17 Workshop: schedule for presentations

Regarding posts to the blog:  If you have confidentiality issues or choose not to post your draft writing to the blog, post it as LastnameDataAnalysis, on the 5002transcripts site(I can't believe I got the wrong course number, but oh well).  That way it will ONLY be available to our class. 

Blog (or post to the transcript site): your for your presentation on your project so far.

Analytic approach:We started class by discussing an approach for analyzing your data where you begin by stating your question (writing into it) and look through the data in some depth, with your question in mind.  Then:

1. Identify a section of text (gut choice) that works as data to explore your question
2. ANALYZE that section of data in terms of:

• Content – what does the text say?

• Positioning: narrator's relationship to content, other speakers, other stories + context

• Language choices/structures

• Any critical lens from any of the other theorists

3. State what your anlaysis suggests with respect to your focus/research question (write this out in some detail)
4.. Go back to the your transcript as a whole and looke for text that has "features" or other examples of what you found from your anlaysis.5. Choose another section of text and repeat 2-4.

 

Presentations:  You signed up for presentations as follows:

April 14: Robyn, Luis, Heather, Maria, Mary

 May 1: Heidi; Nikki; (Maria, Luis Maria); Wayne, Andre

 

For the content of your presentation (post your writing so far where we can open it & follow along):

State your focus: what are your research questions?  What do you see in your data?

Discuss why your connection to writing studies (briefly)

Discuss your methods/critical lens +mention lit that presents those methods

Talk through some of the examples/stories you use to make the points for your focus (we can definitely be of some help in terms of developing/deepening analysis) + be clear on the point each discussion makes with respect to your focus

Most important: give us a heads up re what kind of feedback you want
 

We also discussed the assignment sheet, and the overall form for the paper.

Intro=> states question + problem it addresses (importance)

Methods= how you will analyze your data; methods you will use + NAMES you give to what is going on in your data

Present data: what's going on in data (use your NAMES for what is going on in your data)

Discuss data: say what data means/implies regarding focus; what does this text say/show with respect to my question?

Reflect/conclude

4.10 For next class - catch up

One of the things we would have done in class tonight was to go over the assignment sheet for the research project to allocate points.  I have posted the assignment sheet (also to the right) so you have the parameters/criteria for its different parts.  In class next week we can decide how you want to allocate points.

At this point I have talked with just about everyone, and almost all of you have identified a solid focus for your projects, have identified texts from the course to guide your theory + methods, and are beginning to identify specific sections of data you will use to develop/illustrate your ideas.

If you are still hazy on any of the above - schedule another conference before next class.

For next class (same post = but placing you at your next step):
Blog: Keep working on the focus (write it a number of different ways = but not as a formal introduction), think about the theorists you want to use and think about the ideas that connect.

Identify sections of text (stories) from your transcript (or other observations) and write about what they might "show" with respect to your focus.

Develop some sections of text (focus, statements about theorists, block quotes from transcript + discussion) that you can work on in class.

We will use the blogs as a basis for an in-class workshop, similar to what we had planned for this week.  Also we will pick up Bamberg.

4.3 Shuman and = I think these projects are actually coming together!

Tonight we continued our discussions of methods for analyzing "talk" and "stories" as a way to "re-tell" experience.  We started class with a quick review of Amy Shuman's "Exploring Narrative Interaction in Multiple Contexts."  She framed her discussion in terms of ownership/entitlement; uses of genres/performance styles; intertextuality and dialogic narration; and narrative and socil/political membership categories.  I was impressed how within each category the creation of the stories was an interactive process = shaped both by the narrator and the audience in complex, contextual ways. 

We spent the rest of class writing/reflecting and conferencing about your projects.  The charge was to frame the focus of your study, and identify the theorists you found useful for talking about what you are seeing in the stories you expect to study.

This weeks' discussion shaped up with a summary of projects that went something like this.

1. Luis is focused on how a particular big story associated with teachers being the "validators" of student writing can be detrimental to student development.  He observed that teacher feedback is built into school as a measure of the value of student work. Couple this with an acute focus on audience concerns when writing, and students can lose their internal compass for directing them toward what they value and don't value in their writing. Luis uses stories from his transcript and reflective writing to illustrate when this Big Story about the value of writing works to teach writing - and when (if internalized and generalized) it can hold writers back.

1. Mary is interested in looking at teachers' roles in creating "narrative contexts" that are inviting spaces for talk.  She was thinking of stories from her interview that represented classroom conversations where teachers "talked" or "constructed conversations" where she felt less that willing to participate; these stories contrasted with other stories about teachers who made a "relaxed" atmosphere - places where students had room in the unfolding interactions within the classroom.  One possibility would be to analyze those representations in terms of the characterizations of how the teachers/students talked.  Another idea would be to notice/reflect on conversational dynamics within a classroom - and think take careful notice of the similarities differences between the conversational moves (role assumed by the teacher/assigned to the students/roles students chose for themselves/floor time etc) in the classroom - and those represented in the positive/negative stories.  In particular - there were different conversational spaces at the Charter school, and in the adult learner class.  One important reflection so far has been that the conversational dynamic is neither determined wholly by the teacher, nor by the students.  Theorists: Shuman, MacAdams.  (We had a detailed talk before class = that's why this one is so long).

Mary + Luis were suggested as conversation partners for next week.

2. Maria is thinking about the effects of not having a language community where you can practice the discourse you write in.  Becasue she grew up in a spanish speaking home, personal talk was Spanish, and English was for school.  When zhe began writing persomal material, she felt lost, because the language forms weren't there to express what she was feeling.  She could write in English, but not personal English.

Writing is different from talk - but as pointed out by Bruffee & Gee  & Heath- we are socialized  n the larger forms for authorizing our claims, relating to our material through TALK. (writing and talk are not enetirely separte)

Analyze data to : characterize the consequences of not having a talk/writing discourse => what did it make it hard to do? what did it keep you from doing?

how did the writing center your relationship to private writing?  WHY? 
look at stories about where you shared
maybe examine writing process for private pieces and how it changed in light of writing center

interaction is necessary for thinking
writing is a kind of thinking
talking is necessary for writing

school writing (which models a kind of thinking and talking it vales) is different from private writing

without a model/examples of private writing +> private writing became a part of "me" that became unsayable => lack of discourse for private writing

don't know the forms for communicating the kinds of things M. might say in private writing

contrast between CNF courrse + WC talk

data:
analyze stories about successes with writing (academic) = example of how Bruffee + Heath work = you were in a Discourse community = combination of talk & writing and way of being - socialization process

private writing stories

stories about not sharing private writing (shows lack of



2. Writing for healing and self awareness.  Focus on benefit & purpose, what it can do.  Will use the transcript to identify the surface stories.
discussion = how writing can find "points of entry in the surface stories"; identify the "felt sense" of the unprocessed expereince that surrounds and is evoked by those stories => put unprocessed expereince into words (Perl); re-storying so that you idenfity a story that is really yours and based on your expereince = will write about the role of writing in doing those things

Heather is exploring writing and ownership with systems (is this going to connect to your thesis work?) She is thinking about the way language systems of dominant stories code authority for some identities and exclude or "de-articulate" lines of reasoning/ownership for other identities (am I mixing this up with your thesis)? 
She is thinking about Dufy and Chamberlain - and systems approaches to deconstructing/re-authoring some of the stories that were untellable (or at least untold) within the interview context?  Is that right?  Again, I suggested Maria and Heather, but I am thinking Robyn and Heather might be the better match.

3. Nikki is thinking about authority over writing that is developed through peer modeling - peer communities = where peers are the audience, and will interpret stories from her transcript as models for re-featureing authority in the classroom.  Stories - about Key words = mentoring.  Theorists: Shotter, Chamberlian + Dufy => look at which of the social constructionists in this collection work best)

3. Wayne is thinking about conversational constrictions placed by teachers on students through the simple fact of their identity.  He will analyze stories where he remembers not saying things/or telling a story in a particular way within the interview situation (eg lit teachers teaching him writing) Again, we can develop this at the conference = 2:30 Monday

4. Heidi = analysis of transcript for what was NOT said = unstories, feelings that are known, but not yet entirely tellable, exploration of the role of writing in  "storying" (writing the Chakras) Conference 3:30 Tuesday

4. Robyn: how the literacy myth/big stories about "how writing is" are  not true (examples from transcript) Contrast with the story of what reading/writing/learning are supposed to "be" and how they feel.  Conference Tuesday 1:00-1:30.
Although Robyn and Heidi were suggested as partners = maybe Robyn and Heather, and Maria and Heidi?

5. Lewis - considering several possibilities associated with polished stories, "parenting" and learning.  Conference 2:30 Tuesday.

5. Andre: is going to document how course activities worked in terms of allowing more conscious consideration of discourses surround writing (chandler's appropriation of Andre's lanugage).  In his own words, he is going to write about what the course did for him.  He is going to look at conversations with classmates, his conscious application of felt sense, any writing in-class to prompts (in particular the exploration of mundane traumas), and feelings that prompted writings on the blog.  Through analyzing these materials, he will "discover" what he learned and how he learned it with a focus on encountring and de-bunking "myths" (discourses) surrounding writing.

For next class:
Blog: Keep working on the focus (write it a number of different ways = but not as a formal introduction), think about the theorists you want to use and think about the ideas that connect.

Identify sections of text (stories) from your transcript (or other observations) and write about what they might "show" with respect to your focus.

Develop some sections of text (focus, statements about theorists, block quotes from transcript + discussion) that you can work on in class.

Read:  Bamberg, 99

In class we will go over the assignment sheet for the research project, talk about "small stories", and you will workshop your projects.

3.27 Research projects

We started with a quick review of the orientations in the projects described by Dan McAdams.  His essay nicely summed up three different appoaches:

narrative in the context of discovery: inductive approaches where a close look at the stories within the data "suggests" particular themes or patterns which in turn suggest a "theory" about how certain kinds of stories are told or what they mean ;

narrative in the context of justification: after ideas/possibilities have been suggested for how or why particular stories are told, the analysis of a set of narratives told within defined circumstances might be used to test "the validity or varacity of the theories, hypotheses, or insights defirved from the first step (narrative in the context of discovery);

using narrative to test extant theories: in this application, a fully formed theory or set of hypotheses drawn from existing theory may be tested by examining a defined set of stories told by a defined set of narrator for purposes and in contexts suggested by the theory.

We then spent the rest of class discussing possibilities for your projects.  I have pasted in my (somewhat elliptical notes) below.

Wayne

Springboard stories – lots of stories where he was faced with adversity and then rose to it

W against the teacher – other times as got older bonded with teacher

Idea of Wayne being a "superhero" = one person who became motivated and then rose to the occaison

How influences affected W's confidence =what "invitations" to writing

Got to college had teachers who "invited" W to open up to writing in a different way

Even when younger – positive/negative invitations in different circumstances

What happened to Wayne – in terms of his stories about points of connection – where W became interested in writing

Point= share with other teachers the many points of connection with students – the many ways students connect/become interested

Analyze the features of experiences that act as "invitations" to writing

 

Heather

Seeing in trancript a lot of concerns about ownership and privacy in personal writing

Ways writing was (not) successfully shared

There is a deep story here – that underlies the personal issues with privace

For H a classroom setting – couldn't be negotiated successfully => needed to have (components/control) = had to be sharing with someone with the same interest = to learn to write

Learning to write had to be a setting that was peer oriented

Hierarchical setting of classroom makes it an inhospitable place to write

 

Robyn

Common theme = romantic idea of what its like to read/writing and the struggle of reality

Start with reading a book – that didn't do well with – but liked – but didn't have an understnding

Wish that would get lost in a book – reality didn't match

Term paper in the honors class – about Great Gatsby – didn't turn out that way

Journal writing – romantic idea of a diary – what it would mean = reality of it being very different

 

Expectations set up by big cultural stories about what literacy/reading/writing is "supposed" to be

 

Bialostok, Steven. (2002). Metaphors for literacy: A cultural model of White, middle-class parent. Linguistics and Education, 13(3), 347-371

 

Bialostok, Steven. (2008). Using critical metaphor analysis to extract parents’ cultural models of how their children learn to read. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 5 (2),109-147.

Luis

Talked a lot about reading = but when it came to personal writing, themes for academic writing = very confident, usually worked well, even if teaching wasn't helpful = still managed

Personal writing = talked around it a lot, when it came to sharing, was never an instance of going out there and offering = more about someone asking for it

Wasn't until friend asked to write (with L) that did it, writing poetry – wasn't until another friend asked – that shared poetry, journaling – also very closely guarded

Ways of inviting students to share personal writing

The fact that an experience is articulated in writing is what makes it dangerous to share

Agenda at school = never produce authentic (what you care about) work

School keeps students safe because you can avoid producing authentic work

Composition assumption = good writing is engaged writing

Teacher boundaries = say they want "engaged" writing = but there are still boundaries of academics

Look at different ways invited into writing he valued see if there are ways for that to happen in school

Content, form, function + what did you learn to DO in that writing – that you weren't learning to do at school

 

Maria

Was looking at personal writing as part of the private self – and academic writing as the public self

Spoke about personal writing but didn't TELL anything about personal writing

Looking at the language of talk – more comfortable with talk about academic writing

But personal writing – not formalized, not boundaries – very reluctant to talk about that (would reveal M's own voice)

About students writing in their own voice (Elbow) and be able to translate that into the "academic" writing

Ideas that were already thought about

Language – in constructing the essay = put the ideas out there, made them new – and not M's

Where how should that idea be contemplated – that language makes knowledge

 

Andre

Being a product of this class

What makes A a writer – like reading/writing = no = compulsion/urge to want to write something and make people want to read it despite all the obstacles

Never wanted to stop writing

Listening to interview – realized that it wasn't until started getting around other writers – that began to feel comfortable with writing

Since this class have been applying all exercises – things are coming up that trying to work out

Doing exercises, writing about self writing, writing about what A feels when he writes

When write in school – can write=> everybody has an opinion = but structured in a way that is not necessarily creative

Writing "for serious" = there – almost like have aphasia – there are ideas but there aren't words for ideas

Writing as being, thinking, feeling, saying= want to do it

 

For next week:

Send your transcript to the course email.  It does not need to be perfect - or even proofread =>but it does need to be sent to me before the end of the weekend if you want full credit for this part of the course.

 

Schedule a conference to talk about your project.  My office hours are  1:30-3:30 M-Th  (I can see you from 3:30 - 4:30 if that is going to be necessary - but I will need a heads up so I know to be prepared for my 4:30 classes ahead of time).  We will use this time to nail down your research plan - what you might want to read (if anything, in addition to what we read for the course).  We will also spend some time looking through your data.

Read:  Shuman, Interactive Storytelling  p 125 in Holstein & Gubrium

After we talk about interactive storytelling, we will spend more time writing/analyzing data/workshopping writing for your research projects.

 

Perhaps most important, we will also work out a timeline and a set of evaluation criteria for the research project. 

 

I am really pleased with the work and the thinking we are doing for this course.  I feel like I am learning a lot!

 

 

 

 

Worksheet for developing a research plan

1. Familiarize yourself with your topic:

• do some general reading about what others have written on your topic
• create some brief summaries of what others have written (keep track of your sources)
• make a list of the ideas/questions others are bringing to your topic

2. Identify a research question:

Develop a list of questions you might want to explore with respect to your topic

Strategies to deepen and focus your question. You might open up deeper thinking about ideas that interest you by asking and answering further questions about:

• causes and effects;
• classifications or definitions of the concepts your are studying;
• relative value or importance of ideas associated with your questions;
• the history and evolution (etiology) of ideas within the questions you are asking;
• consequences for students, writers, or some group associated with your question;
• relationships among the actors, actions, context, and consequence within the
• interactions you plan to observe

3. Decide what you need to know in order to answer your research question:

Do some further reading about ideas/research associated with your question + note the

questions other researchers have asked + how they answered them.

Using what you have found from your reading, map out the kind of information you will

need to answer your question.

4. Formulate a research plan that includes:

1. Statement of purpose (what you hope to show/discover)
2. Detailed statement of your research question(s)
3. List of the information you need to gather
4. A preliminary list of sources (work by other researchers)
5. Plan for gathering your information that includes:

• who/what you will be studying
• where/how you will collect your information
• what methods you will use to conduct your study
• what methods you will use to analyze your data

5. Additional writing to break your work into do-able tasks or areas of exploration

6. A timeline for gathering, analyzing + writing up your data