Can you tell me again why we are doing the oral histories/interviews about writing?
We started class with a long discussion about the interviews, the interview process, and transcribing the interviews - and that led to a discussion of the "research project" mentioned on the syllabus and the calendar.
Purpose of the interviews: Your interview provides evidence of the language, story patterns, subject positionings, and so on that you use to talk about writing and your relationships to writing. It also provides a set of stories that "come up" in your mind when you think about writing. The research we will be reading for the rest of the term (beginning with Gergen & Gergen) suggests ways for researchers to study, "take apart," and put back together (in new, more constructive ways) our representations (and therefore our understanding) of our identities and our relationships. We are going to use these methods to analyze our data base, and to see if we can see some patterns in relationships to writing, stories about writing, constructive (and not so constructive) ways of telling stories about writing (and these will certainly be different for each of us) and many other things.
Transcribing. In order to produce a record of your interview, you will "write" what you hear on the recording by producing a word document. I suggest that you mark speakers (S for me, your first initial for you). Your first time through - you can go quickly. You don't have to get everything right. I suggest (in light of the conversations we have had so far) that pretty much everything we have talked about sheds some light on writing, so you probably need to transcribe every conversations. I suggest that you "track" where you are in the interview (especially at stories which feel important as you are listening) by noting the time (or the counter on the tape recorder) so that you move easily back and forth between the recording and your transcript. That way, you can go back to conversations which seem relevant to what you see as emerging themes.
Keep your voice recording. Make a copy of it. You will need it. The transcript is a "reduced" and much less informative version of our talk. At the same time, it is necessary . It holds the data still so we can look around inside it. At the same time, for the stories you are most interested in - you are probably going to want to listen to them - to make sure you are interpreting them correctly.
Your interview data is yours. You are not required to share it with anyone. I am hoping each of you will feel comfortable sharing at least parts (and hopefully large parts) of your data - either through your own analysis of the material, or through making your "talk" available as data for the class.
Research projects. The focus of this course is on the mindsets (assumptions, values, beliefs), identity stories, connections to larger cultural stories, social connections and so on that we bring to writing=> and how they affect our relationships to writing. In particular, this course is interested in providing data on relationships between these identity features, belief systems, and social connections *(which are mostly unconscious and assumed as "the way it is") and the kinds of learning/composing issues we face as we write.
The research projects will be your exploration of issues within this general focus. We are working toward creating a perspective where we might begin to put into words a pedagogy that includes support for students in examining their belief systems, identities, connections to cultural assumptions about writing = in ways that can allow them to become more connected, more confident writers.
This leaves out a lot of what we said in class. In particular, Lewis' point that we are working on creating a pedagogy that provides the equivalent of "streching" or strength exercises = work that athletes must do in order to play their sport= for writers. So a part of what we are doing is looking at the kind of fitness work and attention to the particular aspects of mind that writers need to "build up" before the hit the page running (and work on process and products).
Finishing work with Yancey.
We shared our writing/replies to Mary's reflective prompts, and I for sure am not going to be able to reproduce the excitement of that discussion. It seemed like everyone got something out of the exercise - and what we got was both dependent on who we were as individuals, and about the way reflection (and conversation) works. A partial list of what the exercise did for us includes, allowing us to:
- see how we represent our writing process,
- reconsider whether those representations are what we "do" = or just what we are used to saying we do;
- note our represntations in light of what our partner said(!);
- expand on possibilities for thinking about how we write (the conversations provided us both with new language and with new ideas);
- feel some validation for what is usually an internal process;
- and more.
Everyone had something to say - and there was a lot of investment in the talk. So clearly, reflection = or at least the way we did it Wednesday night, can help writers think about their writing - and their relationship to writing.
Pennebaker
Wayne, Robyn and Andre did a great job on covering the writing and healing work by Pennebaker. His work sets up MacCurdy + deSalvo.
They began by asking the class to report on their experiences with the prompts. Evidently, I should have given you some more set up - or pointed out writing patterns for writers who "worked through" their material, since many of you found the exercise so distressing you were unable to complete it. Well, I guess that's information! Pennebaker's work acknowledged that writers feel "bad" in response to actually doing the prompts, but found that in the following months participants experienced positive health effects as a result of the writing.
The interpretation of Pennebaker's work is that putting feeling into langauge brings about cognitive changes by allowing individuals to simplify and externalize their feelings. And that these changes seem to result in improved health.
They then talked us through the process - and gave examples - of how writing can "vacuum" unwanted thoughts by allowing writers to embrace the material, put it into language, and see/feel past experiences differently. They emphasized that writers who experienced the most pronounced beneficial health effects were able to "let go" => move into a feeling/place where they became lost in the writing = where it was not about thinking. Writers who had the most 'relief" through writing also wrote the details of the experience, and eventually (in subsequent days) began synthesizing the material (putting it together into a story) and finally that they had been able to shift (move back and forth) among different perspectives.
I (sorry) cut the discussion of what these finding suggest in terms of writing pedagogies (and the list we came up with at the beginning of the term). Among other observations, by many of you, Robyn pointed out that it suggests connections to voice and ownership of writing.
I confess to being so involved in this discussion and the one about reflection and the interviews - that I didn't take very good notes.
MacCurdy
Luis and Maria did a great presentation on MacCurdy (with me rushing them through it the whole time). They presented the conflict between mainstream composition pedagogies and "writing & emotion" approaches = teachers are not therapists, and stated MacCurdy's point that when students write personal essays (or write at all) personal material (emotions + trauma) comes into the classroom = whether teachers "invite" it or not.
One central point to MacCurdy's approach centers in getting students to "write the details". Writers have to go back => and they need to re-create the scene in order to put themselves there. Writing the details can both be about getting enough detail to create a story to hold the traumatic event, and about going back and looking at "what is there" as a way to take apart a damaging, or unconstructive story that "stands in the place of" what happened - and is not helping the writer move forward and through the material s/he is working with.
M & L's presentation emphasized that MacCurdy's approach allows writers to increase their agency => to maintain/increase control over their lives through creating representations that "work" for them (did I get that right?)
For next week:
We will check in to see if there are any more reflections on/ideas to use from Pennebaker + MacCurdy, and then get into Lewis' presentation on DeSalvo.
We will also begin the readings from Lock & Strong. I sent you an email with a copy of the first article we are reading, and I am hoping you will all have books for the next assignment.
Read: Gergen & Gergen, in Lock & Strong
Blog: three pieces where you write the details of a writing interaction/experience
No comments:
Post a Comment