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.
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Thursday, April 18, 2013
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 question2. 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.
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
Thursday, April 11, 2013
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.
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.
Thursday, April 4, 2013
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)