From the Mirror

Pounding the Rock

2011-12-30T09:19:00.001-06:00

A number of sports teams, including the San Antonio Spurs, use a motivational device to promote persistence and determination in the face of unsatisfactory results. It is the term, "Pounding the rock." Keep pounding the rock and eventually it will break. You pound and you pound and nothing--and then finally, something. This saying seems to capture how I am feeling post-phd. I have been pounding the rock and not gotten anywhere so far.

Most notably, I was thinking of this saying this morning as I returned to working on an article. This is my basic "rethinking" article on rhetorical reflection. I think I tugged over two sentences for two hours. Pounding and pounding. I think I finally pulled through that section, and so I am finally moving into sections that I hope will be easier to write. Somehow I need to find a way to weave in and leverage my diss work more easily, but constructing the essay is like weaving a complex tapestry with so many strands and a larger picture and pattern that I don't have completely in focus yet. I need to remind myself to keep pounding and pounding. At a certain point in the diss, I felt like I had direction and a clear path. But here I feel as if I have a dim direction and the path is choked with a jungle of brush. Perhaps it is the different context of writing for publication that has me stymied. So far I have not done so well on the publication front since my article for Pedagogy was rejected, though at least they reviewed it. The objections are well warranted, and I think I might be able to present my "how to" article to them. When I can get around to writing it. That is article #2.

One issue that I have not been able to resolve is what to call "curricular reflection." This term has no legs and was specifically disliked in my reviews. The two alternatives I am thinking of right now are comprehensive reflection (from Ramage and Bean) and constructive reflection (from Yancey). Comprehensive fits best, but then I am not sure I want to use someone else's term. Constructive is not quite right when we think strictly in Yancey terms because she has the second category of Reflection in Presentation, and I want this term to cover both. Constructivist Reflection? Ack. I don't much like that one either. So I am presently stuck thinking of a better term. Constructionist Reflection? What's the difference between construct -ivist and -ionist? I must think more. And keep pounding the rock. I'd like to have a draft of this essay done before we return to the semester.

Dreaming of My Digital Writing Workshop

2011-12-04T07:51:00.001-06:00

I am near the end of Troy's book The Digital Writing Workshop. It is filled with excellent ideas, and my mind is twirling and swirling with ideas. I know from many previous experiences integrating technology and attempting various other kinds of digital writing that conceiving digital writing assignments is easier than implementing them. The road to ruin is created with the best intentions and the most well laid out plans. My sense is to craft a course that has an elegance or simplicity to it where digital writing is simply there and constantly done. My current writing classes happen within digital learning environments, but they seldom get beyond text and image on the page--I have not made the leap to video and voice on the screen.

So let me for a few moments here imagine a new direction for my teaching. I wonder if a useful approach to start is to explore how a single subject or "theme" (in good traditional composition terms) might be re-presented and repurposed in various mediums. Write a piece first as text fitting and fulfilling the various textual conventions such as form, organization, development and standard edited English. (Reaching competency with this written communication often is difficult enough in a writing class.) But then take that theme and re-present it as a podcast. Make a Powerpoint presentation of the piece. Make a digital video expressing the ideas. I wonder then about going the opposite direction. Create a digital video about a topic and then go backwards. Turn it into a Powerpoint. Create a podcast of the piece. Write it up as an "essay." This cross-medium approach might be really interesting, but it goes against some of our concepts regarding genre and how the shape or medium of the piece will fit the medium. Some genres work best for certain kinds of messages. Still this approach would engage students in experiencing and learning about the differences in these media for communicating. The problem is the material production for each media is fraught with peril in terms of functional literacy using the technology. I wonder also how shifting into different media complicates students' task representation, making it more likely that they will misunderstand and mistake the composing task.

Another element I would love to incorporate is an actual Writing Workshop where students picked what they wrote about and progressed independently in their writing. Many composition classrooms, including my own, seem to be an all-class forced march through the writing process, draft to draft, due date to due date. It is refreshing and scary to think of "letting go" the curriculum in terms of dictating writing assignments and process. Perhaps I am only thinking of letting go some and creating a more "open structure" to my curriculum and thinking. I wonder about how digital tools might help this effort. I might still have general goals and requirements to a writing task, but students then seek to fill those requirements and reach those goals on their own.

One thing I'd like to try is student blogs as the foundation of the Writing Workshop. Students regularly must post blogs that are not like this (ideas splashed on the page), but carefully thought out pieces of digital writing on topics of their choice. I think the idea blogs are important too, but these might be more formal "texts." Ideally, these also would go into a larger publication space like Youth Voices where college writers from across the country might also be posting their writing. College Voices. This online space would be a rhetorical forum where students would enter a writing community larger than just our class. Certainly, these writers could post other kinds of digital writing as well such as podcasts or digital videos. It would be nice if the interface could also accommodate the publication of compilations or e-zine like pieces. Since my two composition classes next semester are online, I wonder if I could try any of these new approaches.

I've dreamed enough for the moment. Thanks Troy for your book.

Form and Surprise in Composition

2011-11-13T08:35:00.001-06:00

I have been continuing my tutelage under Troy Hicks and the Digital Writing Workshop, but I also began my study of Ramage and Bean's work, particularly Bean. I am planning to study Ramage and Bean with the thought to use their ideas to craft some workshops for faculty in other disciplines at my school (also, I hope to get me to rethink my own assignments).

They begin their textbook, which I did not realize was a textbook, discussing why college freshmen who are inexperienced writers do not go through the entire writing process. They focus on two reasons. One reason they label as "alienation" to describe the disconnectedness of the classroom assignment from a real writing situation. The writing is only a game played by the professor's rules, and these rules seem arbitrary and incomprehensible. The student puts little investment in real communication because it is a silly game they are forced to play to get a grade. As long as writing is a school activity, this first hindrance to writing is hard to overcome completely.

The second reason, though, is interesting to me given my focus on rhetorical reflection. I will quote a part of their text:

"For some reason, they [students] don't seem obsessed by the need to write successive drafts. Why is this so?

" Inexperienced writers, we believe, don't go through the writing process because they haven't learned to pose for themselves the same kinds of problems that experienced writers pose. ... they have not learned how to 'problematize' their experience" (4).

The entire writing process involves problems and choices, and the awareness of some standard or criteria for what is working or not working, right or wrong, that then defines when something is problematic. I've tagged this standard for the writing classroom as the "idea of essay success" and the "ideal text/writer." Part of why I believe Writing Reviews and rhetorical reflection have value is because it engages students in this thinking about their writing and prompts them to work through the problems and choices of writing as a way to develop a "habit of mind." The practice of Writing Reviews as a way of prompting rhetorical reflection "poses" for inexperienced writers some of the kinds of problems that experienced writers pose.

Hopefully, it would help develop unaided and unprompted habits of rhetorical reflection for writers as they become more experienced. This capacity for unprompted rhetorical reflection would constitute transfer.

I look forward to learning from Ramage and Bean.

Before I leave today's post, I want to bring up one other point they discuss and relate it to something I was reading in Troy's book. While defining their understanding of the book's chief concepts--form and surprise--they use the law of thermodynamic as a metaphor to describe surprise in writing. Basically, this law says that the greater the degree of temperature difference, the greater the amount of energy transferred. They say, "Writers aiming for 'surprise' in their essays might imagine themselves conveying energy (the writer's view of a topic) across a gap to a reader existing at a different temperature (a different view of the topic)" (16). As I begin working on my general article on rhetorical reflection, I feel that I can certainly build on the "temperature" difference that lies between the typical way of viewing reflection and that or rhetorical reflection. I saw more evidence of curricular reflection in the description of Dawn Reed's curriculum for creating a podcast in Troy's book. Included at the end of the six page curriculum description is an assignment titled, "This I Believe Informative Speech and Podcasting Reflection." The prompt for the written reflective piece starts this way: "Compose a one-page-minimum typed reflection explaining what you learned from the This I Believe podcasting project" (71). There it is--post-task reflection designed to promote constructivist learning within a context of evaluation. I feel that the "temperature" difference between the common portfolio-centric view of reflection and that of rhetorical reflection is fairly large. Hence, I believe my article can build on a strong element of surprise.

Reflection Saturday

2011-11-06T09:20:00.001-06:00

Yesterday was a San Antonio Writing Project Super Saturday that focused on reflection, and I thought I would process the event a bit. Mainly, I want to process my own keynote presentation and the presentation on reflection in the Summer Institute by Chelsea Silvas.

I really think Chelsea is on to something important regarding the kind of learning that participants experience in the five-week NWP Summer Institutes. Her foundational perspective on reflection comes from Jack Mezirow's notions of Transformational Learning and the role that reflection plays. Mezirow believed that through reflection upon our assumptions or beliefs we are able change these beliefs (which he calls "meaning schemes") or more importantly our "meaning perspectives" (which he labels "meaning perspectives): “Critique and reassessment of the adequacy of prior learning, leading potentially to its negation, are the hallmarks of reflection” (110). So far Chelsea has not surfaced Mezirow's notions of reflection at this level or dug into his notions of content, process, and premise reflection. Also, so far she leans on Higgins et. al. for a definition of "critical reflection" to refer to this evaluative aspect at the heart of the "critique and reassessment" generated through reflection. I believe she will sort these things out.

But I think she is right in line with Mezirow's emphasis in the importance of "validation of knowledge" for learners and the crucial role reflection plays in this validation process.

What Chelsea has identified is three sites for this reflection and validation process to happen. I am going to put her labels for these sites and then the spaces within the ecology of a Summer Institute where these reflections happen:

Other's Experiences--throughout the SI teachers share their classroom experiences in the morning journaling and in countless other informal instances of talk. It could happen in the discussion after a teaching demo, at lunch, or even in peer groups, but it all has the fundamentally similar characteristic of teachers sharing specific instances of teaching and specific experiences from their professional life as teachers.
Narratives--I believe Chelsea is focusing this site of reflection around the writing participants do for the writing pieces. I am not sure that this label will work because not all participants write narratives (at least I didn't). Perhaps Writing or Teachers as Writers would work better. Nevertheless, this site focuses on teachers put in the role of writers.
Community Learning--Three aspects of the SI fall into this category: the teaching demos, writing groups, and reading groups. In some ways, teaching demos are different from writing and reading groups, but if we see the demos as community presentations and including the coaching that goes along with the presentation, then I think they all fit together.

What Chelsea needs to identify is what is reflective about each of these sites of reflection? What is the nature of this reflection she says is transformative and how would we identify instances of this reflection to study it?

My initial thoughts are that the double-movement of reflection is a bit different in each instance, and elaborating on the characteristics in each setting will be very interesting. Generally speaking, though, the double-movement is between self and other.

my teaching experience >< other's teaching experience
me as writer >< my students as writers (writing teacher >< writing student)
me as scholar, writer, teacher >< others as scholar, writer, teacher

In each of these sites, the interplay between self and other causes teachers to expand beyond their previous thinking and practices and experience "validation of knowledge."

Since the interplay of reflection appears to be so much between self and other in this context, I'm thinking that Donna Qualley's notions of reflexivity might not apply. I'm going to tack in a passage I wrote on Qualley from a graduate paper:

"Qualley defines reflexivity this way: 'reflexivity involves a commitment to attending to what we believe, think, and feel while examining how we came to hold those beliefs, thoughts, and feelings. This kind of monitoring and self-awareness seems critical for enabling us to grasp new ideas and information'(41). ¹ She contrasts 'earned insights' with 'ready-made conclusions': 'I comprehend an earned insight to be a kind of understanding whose essential truth is only realized or more fully grasped as it is made manifest through the individual's experience and contemplation of that experience' (35). Ready-made conclusions, in contrast, are packaged truths received uncritically by the learner. Reflection upon experience is one important means of crystallizing 'earned insights.'"

Qualley distinguishes reflexivity from reflection. She sees reflection as self-oriented, but reflexivity is a "bidirectional contrastive response" to an "other" (12). Reflexivity is triggered by this dialectical engagement with the other--"an other idea, theory, person, culture, text, or even an other part of one's self" (11). Along with Elizabeth Chiseri-Strater, she believes this "reflexive dialogue" has incredible power--like opening Pandora's box.

I believe what Chelsea is identifying in her study is the "reflexive dialogue" between self and other that occurs in these three different ways within the SI experience of NWP. I know that her discussion has helped me see my SI experience in another light that helps to explain why it was so powerful.

I've spent most of my post talking about Chelsea's presentation, so I'll now turn briefly to my own presentation. Working on this presentation was a good experience for me because I finally was able to get down some of the thinking I have been having for an article I have had in my head for at least four months. I see now that the overall structure of this article will flow this way:

Display our current bias toward viewing reflection in post-task ways (curricular reflection, portfolio-centric view of reflection)
Broaden our perspective on reflection by exploring the views of Dewey, Schon, Boud, and Kolb
Elaborate on the added perspective of rhetorical reflection: define it, how it works, and why it is important
I guess I should add in the additional part of how to use this kind of reflection in the classroom

I don't know that this article will go into depth about the research and research results. I need to think of target journals but of course I'd like to get in CCC, but perhaps Comp Forum, Comp Studies or even English Journal might be a target. Beyond that, I could trim it to go in TETYC and forfront the pedagogy more.

Anyway, what I discovered when I woke up today was that by doing this presentation I had finally begun working on this article. Hurray!

Mezirow, Jack. Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass, 1991.

Qualley, Donna. Turns of Thought: Teaching Composition as Reflexive Inquiry.

Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, 1997.

Qualley, Donna and Christine Chiseri-Strater. "Collaboration as Reflexive Dialogue: A Knowing 'Deeper Than Reason. "JAC Vol. 14, 1.

More thoughts on Moffett

2011-09-05T07:04:00.002-06:00

I just finished Detecting Growth in Language, and I'm still trying to swallow his Conclusion. He gets almost religious at the end, taking his thoughts about language and language growth into the realm of spirituality (and perhaps psychology). Here is the statement that seems to capture it the most:

"In fact, the abstractive process carries within it the means to regain paradise. Pursuing differentiation and integration far enough leads out the other side, back in the the nonverbal world. The more people interrelate the things of experience by one logic or another (including metaphor) the more they are rebuilding the world within" (69).

Differentiation according to his diagram of The Forms of Thought on page 67 would be Analysis into parts and discriminating differences. This deductive form of thought is more literal, explicit and seeks to elaborate particulars. This kind of analysis is grounded in experience. Integration would be a form of Synthesis into wholes that is more figurative and implicit in nature. Generalizing similarities, this form of inductive thought is about integrating particulars. Moffett is clear that mental growth moves in both directions at once.

His diagram of the Forms of Thought closely resembles Dewey's concept of the double-movement of reflection from and to meaning. I am not sure about regaining paradise through growth in this capacity. Perhaps he is making a reference to the kind of original linguistic nature humans possessed before the fall, a kind of preternatural blessedness that Plato and then Wordsworth hallowed when we were truly in contact with the Ideas. I suppose I am more comfortable with Dewey's goal of learning proficiency in thinking rather than Moffett's spiritual goal. Dewey is more practical and civic in his rationale for becoming skilled at thinking.

It is interesting to see Moffett end by bring up concepts that so resemble what I have been dealing with related to rhetorical reflection. His Growth Sequence 26 (the last one) is labeled: "Toward increasing consciousness of oneself as a language user and of the language alternatives one has to choose from" (66). He states that the result of all the other ways of growing (all 25) is "a sort of master growth that is meta-linguistic." Since the quote is so good, I'll go ahead and include it all here:

"That is, one becomes detached from language, conscious of oneself as a language user, and able to verbalize about one's verbalization. This is inseparable from becoming meta-cognitive--able to think about one's thinking. Both are major ways that consciousness itself grows, since consciousness inevitably includes forms of self-consciousness.

"With awareness of oneself as a chooser goes greater choice. ... In other words, metalinguistic growth is a form of consciousness-raising, which depends not merely on grasping some concept but on taking personal action"(66).

Bless Moffett for his last statement. Rhetorical reflection, as a concept related to writing, moves beyond mere awareness to critical evaluation and judgment. That judgment forms the basis for personal action. Rhetorical reflection is directly related to action, to problems and choices and necessities and limitations and possibilities and finding the appropriate with the available means.

I wonder, however, is we could jump students too quickly toward this metalinguistic awareness. Moffett says it is the result of all the other growth. Could we expect this metalinguistic awareness too soon when our students have not grown into it yet? I have to find an excellent research article I found on metalinguistic development, but I seem to recall that this kind of awareness comes late in development. So if this meta-linguistic, meta-cognitive capacity emerges late in growth, what kind of expectations can we have for seeing and prompting this level of thought?

A good question for research...

James Moffett--Detecting Growth in Language

2011-09-04T06:34:00.002-06:00

This past summer has been something of a Moffett summer for me. I spent time in June reading through Teaching the Universe of Discourse so I could pull together some broad statements about the development of writers. I paralleled Moffett's levels of abstraction with Bereiters and Scarmandalia's "knowledge telling" and "knowledge transforming" model with King and Kitchener's growth in reflective judgment. What I produced probably served to confuse my workshop attendees more than enlighten them, but for me these various models represent interesting perspectives on the same phenomena of growth.

Most recently, I've been reading through Moffett's thin (but very dense) book on Detecting Growth. He discusses 26 different "growth sequences," and his premise in the book is that instead of standardized tests (which provide a inadequate measure of growth) these growth sequences indicate real development. If we could get good at identifying these growth sequences (and fostering them), then we would not need these tests because we could easily demonstrate learning and growth in our students.

The problem, as I have been finding, is that Moffett's growth sequences are complex and difficult to grasp. He also has a dizzying number of these sequences, so that though he may have an overarching sense of development in writers, we would all need to be James Moffett to see them too. I have just finished his section on "chaining" and sentence combining. I was pleased to see that the sequence I have my students work though in the sentence combining and editing exercises I typically use, fits with his notions of a growth sequence in how to relate ideas in sentences: from modifying to conjoining, to reducing, to embedding.

As I read Moffett, I experience a grasping of importance in a partial sense, but not the whole. I also desire this whole sense, so I can piece it together and translate it into curriculum that fosters development. I can't help but wonder if others have done this same thing (he does have his own textbooks), and I wonder if anyone has researched his concepts of development to see if they can be identified (and verified) empirically. Moffett speaks with a philosopher's voice, like Dewey or Aristotle, stating truths seemingly out of thin air that ring true and provide deep insight, and like these other philosophers he speaks from his own experience, intelligence, and speculation--not necessarily from research.

I know that I will continue to try to make sense of Moffett, and I wonder what others have said about his ideas of growth in writers.

Reassessing the "Proofreading Trap": ESL Tutoring and Writing Instruction

2011-08-14T05:23:00.000-06:00

Sharon Myers discusses an important dilemma I have felt many times when working with ESL writers: where to begin when confronted with a host of errors. I totally agree with Myers' point that we can't reduce the difficulties these students are facing down to mere language and errors. In a Shaunessey type way, we must understand the source or rationale for their linguistic problems and work with them with that awareness centrally in mind.

In one way, the trap becomes something like this: "Oh my, there are a ton of errors. OK, let's fix them one by one." The tutor or teacher diving into this bog of error, indeed, falls into a trap because the errors are so numerous and so difficult. Work to correct each of these errors can take hours. I like, however, Myers' description of the trap: "There is indeed a 'trap.' It is created by the contradictions between what ESL learners need and are capable of and what an uninformed perspective leads us to suppose they need and are capable of"(233). We suppose they need the paper fixed, but their needs may be for more fundamental lexical or syntactic understandings about language. The tutoring session is in fact a teaching session. Ultimately, the paper is not important--it is the learning that can be gained for the ESL writer while they work on the paper.

Myers trashes Cogie's four strategies useful for tutors to work with ESL students: learner's dictionaries, minimal marking, error logs, and self-editing checklists. Instead, she closes her article (and illustrates it too) with her recommendations:

a more relaxed attitude toward error
an appreciation of second language acquisition processes
and better training in the pedagogical grammar of English as a second language

I like these recommendations. It is the last one that is the hardest because it depends upon a level of knowledge and reflective judgment dealing with an ESL writers work that inexperienced tutors may not have. Personally, this awareness of where ESL writers are in their language acquisition and some sense of why they make these kinds of errors and what we can do to work with them regarding these problems comes from the chapters in handbooks devoted to working with ESL writers. I think these are a good starting place, and often have more detailed information that ESL writers appreciate.

In terms of my new role as WC Director, I think that this article makes some significant points. It will be important to make ESL writers a prominent subject for our training and discussions as well as for the resources available from within our WC.

The Concept of Essay Success in Rhetorical Reflection

2011-08-09T06:47:00.000-06:00

One of the subjects of extended discussion in my dissertation defense was the concept of "essay success." At the time, I don't believe I had found the words yet to adequately express what I mean by this concept; however, since I have been working on my "Picturing Reflection" article, I believe I have fleshed out the concept. Below is a section from this article I am still drafting:

*****************************************************

My research discovered that rhetorical reflection involves comparison, assessment, and judgment made in terms of a writer’s conception of “essay success.” What is considered and gleaned from feedback, the identification and framing of problems, the understandings generated as well as the plans made for revision all depend on the writer’s concept of what constitutes essay success.

The concept of essay success closely resembles Hayes’s idea of task schema because it likewise serves as a controlling factor for the entire dynamic of reflective thinking within rhetorical reflection. If as Higgins, Flower, and Petraglia believe true reflection involves critical evaluation, the grounded theory of rhetorical reflection says that this evaluation starts with a comparison between the “real text/writer” (that is, the actual text on the page or activities performed by the writer) and the ideal text/writer (the ideal of what the text should be or the activities performed by the writer should be). The essential double-movement or dialectic of rhetorical reflection involves this comparison within the writer’s mind between the real and the ideal text/writer, as the following graphic illustrates:

The diagram also portrays the important place of feedback in providing the writer with an outside representation of the real and ideal text/writer for consideration.

Within rhetorical reflection, writers constantly interpret, transform, and confirm their conceptions of the real and ideal text/writer. Although essay success equates to the ideal text/writer, the concept of essay success differs because it represents the practical and tangible expression of the ideal text/writer in actual writing. Essay success is the closest alignment writers can manage between the real text/writer and the ideal/text writer—acknowledging that the real never matches absolutely the ideal. Despite Knoblauch and Brannon’s critique of the “Ideal Text” as reductive and an expression of teacher authority, this idealized conception of the text need not be either fixed or in the sole possession of the teacher (120). As the diagram below illustrates, aspects of essay success are multiple and exist along a spectrum from being fixed and definite to more various and contingent:

For instance, task requirements such as page length or the requirement to incorporate quotes from research constitute fixed aspects of essay success for that particular assignment. Standard conventions for the use of punctuation or documentation are similarly more certain characteristics of essay success. However, how to create an engaging opener for the essay or how to provide adequate and convincing support are much less definite and abstract. The contingent side of essay success is open to a greater variety of options and is subject to context to determine appropriateness and success.

Wherever the concept of essay success may fall within writers’ thinking, it exists as a kind of measuring stick against which writers make the comparisons, assessments, and judgments that constitute the reflective thinking of rhetorical reflection. Any knowledge generated or validated within these reflective writings originates from the writer’s representation of essay success. Also, the assessments and judgments that occur within these reflections are based upon this concept of success or failure, and writers constantly orient themselves toward this goal of essay success and try to move in its direction (similar to McAlpine’s et al.’s model). A problem in the text won’t be acknowledged as a problem unless it is seen to be out of alignment with writers’ understanding of the ideal text; likewise, a plan for revision won’t be considered or devised and accepted unless it is moving the real text toward essay success. Resembling the notion of to prepon from classical rhetoric, “fitting-in-bounds” is the term that describes this reflective thinking made in terms of essay success.

New Vistas: The SAC Writing Center

2011-08-04T06:13:00.000-06:00

I will be starting a new adventure this next semester as the SAC Writing Center Director. I only have a two course release-time for a position that can easily suck 40-60 hours a week, so I am a bit anxious about this work load, but I am excited about this new experience in writing and writing pedagogy. I've begun reading some of the (vast) literature on writing centers, and I feel my head spinning.

What is the SAC Writing Center, as a center? How will I shape it?

Is it a fix-it shop, a garret, or a Burkian parlour? Is it a product oriented, process oriented, or post-colonial writing center? I prefer it to be a Burkian parlour, but we shall see if I can succeed in shaping it that direction. I like the notions of the writing center being something like a "cafe" where writer get fed. All writers are hungry, all writers are welcome at the cafe--it isn't a place for just one group (deficient writers or struggling writers). A writing center is a place to feed writers!

Yum!

I know that in the future I will have more posts related to writing centers and their theory and practice.

Student views on reflection and feedback

2011-07-10T11:07:00.001-06:00

The summer I session is over, and I am evaluating final portfolios, giving me the chance to read final reflective thoughts written by my students about the semester and what they have learned. I always love reading these final reflections. I thought I would share some thoughts on peer response and reflection written by two of my students and then comment on them because they are so interesting:

"I didn't realize this before this class, but I found that I am able to get moving and develop my own essays more when I get help from my peers. When I was even just reading their stories, like during the second essay again, I found motivation and a new outlook on where to take my own essay. By reading their essays, I was able to develop my own into something I am proud of. By doing peer response, I found the problem areas I didn't know I had in an essay so I could address them."

This student validates the concept of sharing student writing and making it all public. All drafts are posted for all students to read. I have written before that this stance of "spectator-participant" causes students to observe each others' work more reflectively and critically. As they observe others, they are thinking and comparing the work of their peer to their own work. Students also tap into the the multiplicity or wisdom of the crowd, and they gain a sense of perspective or orientation on how to proceed. This student by making the comment that she "found motivation and a new outlook" also makes the point that this viewing and responding to peer writing was inventional for her.

"Reflection helped me formulate insight that I applied to my writing particularly the 2nd essay about description. When I finished my writing, I began reading other people's writings in order to give them feedback. There were many writings in which I had many questions abou tthings such as, "why this?" or "what was the setting?" It was not until I read what other people had written that I realized I had done the same thing. I had gone full circle. I saw people asking questions like, "where were you when the moose started chasing you?" and "what were you thinking as you were running down the hill?" It was because of this reflection on others' writing and my own that I realized there were pieces to the puzzle that were missing. Pieces that I needed to fill in order to become a better writer."

This student expresses the same value in observing the writing of peers, but he experienced an additional revelation when he turned to observe and reflect upon his own writing. The reflective observation and critical thinking he performed upon others became amplified when he turned his rhetorical reflection upon his own writing. The most important line in his reflection is this one: "I realized there were pieces to the puzzle that were missing." Through his reflective thinking he "came to know" something he did not before. I like his metaphor of the puzzle and missing piece because it implies that the writer is constructing something and that this between-the-draft peer response and reflection has helped him obtain something or see something important for this construction that he did not have before.

Interestingly, this writer made minor revisions on his descriptive story by adding two sentences of additional description. These were important places to "show" more, and his improvements did make a positive change for the story, but they were not very extensive changes. The degree to which he followed his insight was low. He saw what what needed, but on a scale of 1-10 only went to level 3. Why? Why was he not able to follow through more deeply on his insight.

I want to speculate that he went as far as he was able for his developmental stage. In his own mind, he went very far. He described the moose and his father scaring the moose more, and so he made significant changes. However, he did not have the experience or perspective to see greater potential for expanded description. Does his low level of revision diminish the value of the insight gained from refection? --definitely not! This same knowledge and discovery he made will, when he is ready, lead him to make much more extensive changes in future situations. In the gap between thinking and action, we do what we are ready and able to do.

Picturing Reflection and Dewey's Double-movement of Reflection

2011-06-02T07:45:00.000-06:00

It has been a while since I posted to this blog. I have survived the long tunnel of the dissertation, and I have emerged finally ready to reengage with my subject from a new vantage point and in new ways. I want to share an excerpt of an article submission I just sent out today titled "Picturing Reflection: Diagrams and Models of Reflective Thinking." In the article I pull together and examine multiple graphical representations of reflection. These models, at least for me, work as visual metaphors for reflecting upon the nature of reflection. Below is one section on Dewey's concept of the "double-movement of reflection" (diagram made by me):

Dewey and the Double-Movement of Reflection

One of Dewey’s greatest contributions to our conception of reflection is his labeling of this dialectic as the “double movement of reflection.” In his chapter “Systematic Inference: Induction and Deduction,” he describes this double movement as a shuttling between facts and meaning: “There is thus a double movement in all reflection: a movement from the given partial and confused data to a suggested comprehensive (or inclusive) entire situation; and back from this suggested whole—which as suggested is a meaning, and idea—to the particular facts” (79).

The “double movement to and from a meaning” constitutes the fundamental dynamic of reflection (80). The discovery of induction pieces together meaning from facts or data, while the testing of deduction takes conclusions or premises and checks them against the facts or data: “The inductive movement is toward discovery of a binding principle; the deductive toward its testing—confirming, refuting, modifying it on the basis of its capacity to interpret isolated details into a unified experience” (82). Judgment remains crucial to this double-movement of reflective thinking, both at the level of selecting and making sense of facts and at the level of assessing how well this larger understanding fits back with the facts. Genuine judgment, Dewey believes, involves the weighing of facts and the withholding of conclusions until they have been thoroughly examined. Discussing his understanding about the importance of judgment, he states: “But if the meaning suggested is held in suspense, pending examination and inquiry, there is true judgment. We stop and think, we de-fer conclusions in order to in-fer more thoroughly” (108). Thinking that shortcuts the resolution of the perplexity by accepting a suggested meaning without examining it carefully, or that accepts uncritically a dogmatic belief, involves no judgment and for Dewey involves no reflective thinking.

Selective Coding Memo 6/14/10

2010-06-14T06:48:00.000-06:00

I think I could do another couple weeks of selective coding, but I don't know that I will necessarily see that much new. I'm feeling a bit saturated, so it is time to start pulling my findings together. This selective coding stage has pulled together as I never imagined it would. It has provided a very interesting lens through which to view my data.

It originated in some of my abstract thinking about why Writing Reviews were not providing the stimulus for reflective thinking. It has increasingly become clear that I will have to articulate more clearly what I consider to be "reflective" and what is not. I would need to be able to identify within my data instances of reflective thinking and non-reflective thinking. So I went back to some basics about the dynamics of reflection. There are different levels

--thinking

--thinking about something (what is the difference between these first two?)

--thinking about your thinking about something

It is this third level that I would consider to be reflective thinking. There is a certain level of reflection involved with thinking about something, particularly if that something involved some degree of previous thinking, so it can be hard to draw the line and clearly identify "thinking about your thinking about something."

So armed with this concept of what defined reflection, I went back through slice 2 data (14 WRs), reprinted fresh copies, and used yellow highlighter to identify examples of thinking about your thinking about something. I then copied and pasted all of these together and did a comparative analysis where I noted similarities and differences in these examples.

From a list of the concerns of each of these reflective episodes, I can state that what they were thinking about what highly rhetorical. Many wrestled with audience and how best to reach or persuade them. A number were about finding the best information (to best persuade their audience). I don't think this insight says a whole lot except that they are dealing with important writing issues. But the WRs as a whole do this, so I don't think these reflective episodes are different except in the manner and depth with which they engage with these rhetorical issues.

The reflective gaze is one of comparison and assessment in terms of essay success.

I wrote this statement, and it seemed to encapsulate my insight into these reflective episodes. To test this statement, I made a chart where I had three columns:

Comparison Assesssment Essay Success

I allowed two rows for the comparison cell, so I could list the two things being compared. I then went back to see if I could chart out these reflective episodes into these three columns, and I could. In most cases, the comparisons articulate some sense of not fitting in bounds sort of like trying to fit a square peg in a round whole. The comparison involves often a coming to know that is rooted in an assessment or judgment about the situation. This assessment/judgment is made based upon the writer's sense of essay success. I thought it was very interesting that the term "judgment" came back into my thinking at this point. Through this reflective thinking, students are making some judgment about their writing situation and from that judgment determining a new course of action. The reflective episodes divide neatly into two halves: the "no fit" half and then the "to fit" (as in what to do to fit). Significantly, the basis for this judgment is the writer's concept of essay success.

Let's look at one as an example, and I will "code" it.

Example:

A solution for my research paper has been hard to come by. The problem is my claim supports the current status quo, and it is the public at large that disagree with the status quo. So at this point in the draft cycle my solution will be to look for a compromise between the two sides.

I put in bold what I consider to be the reflective portion of this statement. The writer starts by telling/reporting their problem. The next sentence expresses their thinking about this problem. Notice how this reflective statement is an evaluative statement containing their judgment about the source of the problem. Also, notice that there seems to be comparison going on: Claim supports X >><< public does not support X. The writer certainly could have written more about this problem, but through this comparison they are seeing how their claim is mismatched with the public view on the claim. The last line is their expression of what they will do to work through this problem in order to make their claim “work” in terms of essay success. Their way to solve this problem with their claim is to find a solution that each side can agree on—they want to please everyone. The important thing is not their particular revision goal but to see how the writer is working on fitting in bounds. We see in these reflective episodes a neat division between the no fit/to fit.

Armed with these insights into reflective episodes inside these WRs, I began to ask the question: What, then, distinguishes “non-reflective” episodes. Looking back at the data to identify non-reflective episodes, I noticed that they remain at the level of reporting/telling. They may express an awareness or even self-awareness of something, but they don’t dig deeply into questioning or explaining this awareness further.

To “think about” your “thinking about something” (to me) seems to involve questioning HOW or WHY or WHERE or WHEN. Is there a difference between “thinking about my problem” and “thinking about the causes of my problem?” Is it not really “reflection” until I get to my “thinking about” the “thinking about the causes of my problem?”

Going back to my analogy of my son in front of the hallway mirror, the non-reflective episodes follow this dynamic. He walks down the hall, looks in the mirror and sees his collar is up. In his WR, he writes, “My collar is up. I think I will turn it down.” He walks on. Notice there is no comparative assessment involved, and the judgment is simply a direct statement almost of fact. There is no explanation or elaboration about the basis for this judgment. THAT is what I see these reflective episodes providing—some basis or grounds for understanding the problem or for choosing a particular action.

Here’s one example of a non-reflective statement:

“I was told by my peer that I needed to make this story relate to people at my school and that I needed to effectively show that the “entire company as a whole” was ruined to expose the impact of this event on society. … I will have to take these things into consideration for my next draft as I wish to make changes in these areas to improve my grade.”

Notice that the writer simply reports what the peer thinks about their paper. They SAY that they will take these suggestions into consideration, but the substance of this consideration is not included in this WR. If this reflective thinking happens, it happens outside of the WR.

I noticed from my first slice the prevalence of [telling/reporting what is] as well as its counterpart [considering/evaluating what is]. I have roughly held the difference between these two codes as the difference between non-reflective and reflective thinking, and what I have done with this selective coding is dig more deeply into the difference between these two categories and express that difference more clearly.

Approaching Selective Coding

2010-06-01T07:48:00.000-06:00

I am feeling more comfortable with the idea that I am approaching the end point of my research. I have attempted to make my research "rigorous" in that I have sought to engage in Grounded Theory research following its methods. I can't say, as a novice, that I have done these methods perfectly, but I have tried to pursue the procedures and objectives as best that I could.

For various reasons, I choose to follow Strauss and Corbin's sequence of "coding" or categorization (I plan to no longer use the term "coding" since I believe, like Dey, that it is a misnomer) from open, to axial, to selective. I think I can say with confidence, especially after the May workshop, that I have pursued axial coding sufficiently. I have worried, however, how to approach selective coding and how to reach the end point with an integrated theory. Now I have a game plan.

Through re-reading Strauss and Corbin's (1998) chapter on "Selective Coding," I believe I have arrived at three things I can work on doing that will integrate my theory:
1) Writing the storyline--using narrative to provide a way to pull concepts and variation together
2) Diagramming--using the drawing of diagrams and models to conceptualize the theory
3) Reviewing and sorting through memos

I realize now that my "Recognition in Slice 5" memo involved all of these three activities of theory integration, so to a degree I may be redundantly pursuing my theory. However, I feel that after the last two weeks I am deeper into my understanding of the data. I also realize that my previous blog post (muddle) is about this first step of using narrative.

Corbin and Strauss talk about how difficult integration is for novice researchers (like myself). They state, "The difficulty students seem to have is coming up with the more abstract theoretical scheme that explains all of their data" (155). They go on to state that unintegrated theory might contain interesting descriptions and some themes, but no theory. What is missing are statements telling the reader how these themes relate to each other. It is an uncovering of the relational terrain and dynamics of a system that distinguishes a theory.

Another question has been which of my key concepts will I label as my "core category": fitting in bounds or essay success. This question is not an easy one for me, since I believe each could work as my core category, and either way they will be deeply intertwined with each other. Strauss and Corbin state that the core category has "analytic power" and that it has the "ability to pull the other categories together to form an explanatory whole" (146). I think fitting in bounds may work best because that is the dynamic--the goal and activity--at work in these writing reviews (and outside them). Essay success is perhaps as strong a concept as fitting in bounds, but it is the concept which regulated and directs fitting in bounds. Hmm.... Does that make it more central? I have to think about it.

It's a grand muddle

2010-05-26T20:11:00.001-06:00

E.M. Forester in Passage to India talks about mysteries and muddles. I believe I am in a great big muddle. I have immersed myself in my slice 5 of data, and I think I have dug so deeply into the minutia of the data that I am overwhelmed with it all. Like I experienced as I prepared for phase II of my lit review, I have been busy collecting and preparing separate "items," and now I have all of these cards scattered on the floor like 52 card pick up.

I am struggling with the axial coding, and how to do it in such a way that I am seeing patterns and relationships. I'm struggling with my insights to the overall draft cycle and then maintaining my focus on the reflection. I can say that these reflections present a partial and even deceptive picture of what really is going on and ends up happening. Mostly, I am intrigued by how things go astray and by my speculations about why. This mirror of reflection is a fairly cracked mirror.

In my mind, I keep coming back to my analogy of my son going to school with his collar up or his hair unbrushed and a wing of hair flying high from the back of his head. The act of reflection is the act of gazing in the mirror. The mirror itself is the "other" that presents a representation of you--a peer response, a self-evaluation, a glance at an other's draft, or looking at additional research. I have recently reincorporated viewing drafts and doing research as "mirrors" along with considering/reporting feedback, and I'm not sure they exactly fit, but they do provide contrastive and additional perspectives. Hmm. I'll have to think more about how to categorize them, but I know that they impact the identification of problems and coming to know (and eventual revision goals).

So now that we have the elements of this act of reflection in place, let's return to my son walking down the hall past our hall mirror and let's say he looks in the mirror.

Scenario 1: He sees his collar is up, realizes that it is a problem, and reaches up and folds it down. Reflection works. He would have gone to school looking like a slob, but now he is a guapo stylish guy. He gets an A on his paper.

Scenario 2: He looks in the mirror, sees his collar is up but shrugs his shoulders, says who cares, and walks on. He either purposefully decides the collar is not a problem, or he doesn't see it as a problem at all. He either does not have the appreciation (this is good/this is bad sense) of collars being down, or perhaps he doesn't think it is that bad. It fall within what McAlpine called his "corridor of tolerance." He can tolerate his collar being up. So has reflection failed? It has from the sense that we (the teachers) think all writers should have their collars down (our view of essay success).

He might also not have any sense that collars should be down. The whole concept of collars is so ill-defined to him that he really doesn't even notice the collar is up. As he looks in the mirror, he might even think his image in the mirror looks good. He leaves it up.

Scenario 3: He glances in the mirror, and he sees his shirt is untucked and hair unbrushed, but he doesn't even notice his collar is up. He might tuck in his shirt, but then decide not to brush his hair and not touch his collar because he has no realization that it is up.

Scenario 4: He looks in the mirror, sees his collar is up, but proceeds for the door without touching it. He told himself, "I need to pull down my collar," but he doesn't because it he is late for school and doesn't have time to pull it down. The expedient thing is to leave it up so he isn't late. Or he said he will get to it later, but then when he arrives at school he is is distracted and forgets.

Scenario 5: OK, once again he is getting ready for school. He puts his shirt on and the collar is up. He walks by the mirror, doesn't see the collar, but on the way to the car he feels the collar is up and then fixes it. He makes this change on his own without the aid of the mirror. Did he even need the mirror to make this change?

Scenario 6: Let's say he walks by the mirror, sees the collar is up and even acknowledges that it ought to be down. However, he doesn't know how to pull his collar down. He doesn't have the strategies, tactics, and skills he needs to make this change. So the collar stays up.

Scenario 7: He's back in front of the mirror, and he knows that I am standing there too, so he says the collar is a problem and that he will pull it down just because I am standing there and that is what he knows I want him to say and do. I go into the bathroom, and he proceeds to the car having appeased me but not pulled down his collar. This problem identification and setting of revision goals has been done for my benefit. And the collar stays up.

I'm running out of scenarios, but I think these give a picture of the muddle I am seeing and trying to make sense of. So what role does reflection play? What is the purpose and effect of looking in that mirror? What if we had no mirror in the house? Is it necessary? Do we only gain this perspective on ourselves through this reflection?

Muddle muddle muddle.

I believe that the dymanic of these writing reviews is fundamentally shaped by what I am calling "essay success." I believe that will be my core category. So how do I do selective coding just for it? My axial coding is a mess right now. I think I need to spend some more time now that I have the cards all scattered about the floor. I think these scenarios point to variations I am seeing in the dynamic of reflection, but I need to refine these patterns and compare them to other patterns. What is significant in each case?

I'm also confused as to what constitutes a "theory." What is it that I am creating? I've become so lost in my data I feel that I have lost sight of what my end point will be. So I am going to take a break from my data for tomorrow. I want to review my literature on grounded theory both to refresh and guide me at this point and prepare for writing my methodology chapter. I'll come back to it on Friday and see what I see then.

In the meantime, I muddle on.

Processing the Annual Review

2010-05-19T09:42:00.001-06:00

October 1st.
That's the date I need to have a draft of my dissertation done if I want to defend in December. OK. Sounds good to me.

While things are fresh in my mind, I want to record some of the things we talked about at my annual review. Becky was double-booked with another presentation this morning, so she was not there.

Rich gave me the admonition that now is the time to arm wrestle my data and the entire dissertation project and get it done. He complemented me on how I have sought to follow grounded theory's methods and remain open to my data and let it lead me where it will, but that now I need to begin to pull things together. I don't think he is advocating forcing the data, but instead saying that the time of openness and inquiry is passing and it is time to shift into analysis and findings--to develop my theory. I mentioned that while I am still open and inquirying with slice 5, I am pushing hard to get through this slice here in Lubbock and begin the end game of generating my theory. (That will be a subject of a future blog post, I am sure.)

Both Fred and Rich are interested the deep picture of what is going on for students within a writing assignment that my analysis is revealing. I showed them my refined version of my categories, properties, and dimensions and I used the analogy of a rubics cube to describe how these different categories and other elements fall into and out of alignment and even embed within each other. What I am gratified to hear is that the language I have chosen for my categories (fitting in bounds, essay success, coming to know, revision goals) were used by both Fred and Rich, and they seemed ok with them. They seem to grasp the concept and phenomena that the terms describe. That's good. I have been so close to these terms and using them so much that I am losing a sense of whether they work or not.

Interestingly, we had some discussion about time (or timing). Fred pointed out the diachronic and synchronic aspects of my study. I think what he is interested in is the diachronic aspect of my analysis--looking at the writing review in the context of the larger essay or draft cycle (and even the semester). Both Fred and Rich think I am digging into a perspective on student writing that has not been done very much, and it provides a unique perspective. What is often revealed are mismatches and discordances in the "system." I had just been looking at some of Spinuzzi's stuff on activity systems, so I referred to this classroom context of writing instruction as a kind of activity system. I spoke of a few cases I had seen where students misinterpreted the assignment, DI feedback did not critique following the assignment criteria, and the reflection was a total failure in terms of what we theoretically believe reflection will do (the value-added assumption of reflection). Fred referred to this phenomenon as "missing each other in the night" and as the "dark underbelly of composition." Mismatches and discordances occur due to poor views of essay success. So, Fred said, this research shows the importance of providing clear and available as well as concrete and detailed representations of essay success.

I had a few excerpts from Writing Reviews that we looked at together, and I narrated what I saw going on using the language of my categories. A couple of things came up from this discussion. I wanted to show cases where resolutions/goals were made and also instances where concrete steps were proposed to follow, but the student did not follow them in the next draft. In these WR, you can see instances of "coming to know" but then that knowledge does not extend (or transfer) into changes in the draft. Rich spoke of the importance of kairos or timing--that perhaps the time gap between the moments of realization and then working on the draft again led to unfulfilled resolutions. The moment of the coming to know should then be immediately followed by the act of application. He spoke of his believe in inserting the "teaching" of essay success right at the moment of realization and application and how that is what he has been wanting to create.

Fred also had some interesting things to say about the strategies these students were coming up with as their revision goals. He called them soft strategies. They mimiced the language of teachers using the words, but these were really like weasel words. They are really so vague that they are really expressing a true understanding at all. He mentioned S. I. Hayakoka's Language, Thought, and Action as having discussed this kind of use of language.

I had a few questions regarding my lit review and how I had framed my inquiry. Question 1 was whether linking my inquiry back to Young and his work on invention made sense. I want to anchor my inquiry into the questions Young had about invention back in 1978, showing how my inquiry has roots in a central concern of our field. They both thought it sounded ok.

The second and third questions focused on terms I had used to describe the gaps or problems in our field's understanding of reflection that in a sense justify my own inquiry. The first gap is what I call the value-added assumption of reflection and how we uncritically think that reflection will provide "value" or a benefit to students (and it is a certain kind of benefit). This gap and term for it seemed to check out ok too. I also think that our view of reflection is influenced by portfolios. We see reflection as a post-task constructivists activity, and don't conceive it in in-task terms. I call this the "portfolio-centric view of reflection." They both thought it sounded good too and rang true.

I think this about covers what we discussed. I know I am missing things. They both often referred to "this is the kind of thing to put in your chapter 5." I can't say right now I saw all the things that they did for what could go in there, but I think I can return to these possibilities when I get to chapter 5.

I still have a long way to go, but I am well-positioned to complete this project. But I will have to do some arm wrestling to get it done.

The May Workshop

2010-05-17T14:11:00.000-06:00

So another May Workshop has begun, and I am once again sitting in a dorm room in Carpenter Wells. I want to write for a bit about what I hope to accomplish while I am here. Time is short, and time is long. I hope to make the most of this time.

I am on the verge. I am near the point where my research will come together, but I have a lot of work yet to do. Let me chart out what I see that I need to do with my grounded theory analysis.

I need to define my categories, properties, and dimensions.
Then I need to analyze slice 5 with these "more consciously defined" categories
I will then need to process this analysis along axial lines
See if some core category truly emerges?
Recode previous slices along axial lines to further clarify my sense of a core category and densify my categories and emerging theory
See at this point if I need to do more coding

If I can get this far this May, then I will feel truly accomplished. I may only get through item 4, but that will be OK I think.

Since I can't code the whole time, I thought at the same time (probably in the evenings) I would work on my methodology section. I may not be able to do all of the methodology because I have not finished my actual coding and thus reached the end of my coding, but I can at least pull together my rationale for this methodology better.

I have a few steps I think that this will involve. I can't quite see the sequence, but here are the tasks:

Review previous drafts of rationale and methodology description
Review other dissertations to see their description of the methodology and see what goes into a methodology section
Review other readings I have related to GT to see what other kinds of rationale I can use
Begin drafting/redrafting the chapter

And that should keep me pretty darn busy.

While I am here, I also want to get a good sense of what my real lit review chapter would be like. I have a section that seemed to be moving in a direction that would work in the dissertation, so I want to get some feedback to see if that direction is a good one to go in.

So I have three main goals
--GT analysis
--methodology drafting
--double-checking direction for lit review

Accomplishing these things will all need to be done, but it will position me for the summer work much better if I have managed to get this far. We shall see how it goes.

I will update along the way. In the meantime, it is a beautiful day outside with a clear blue sky, and I am still in my dorm room inside.

Plato and "Essay Success"

2010-05-15T07:22:00.002-06:00

Has it all come back to Plato? This morning as I pondered over my concepts and emerging theories of how they relate to each other, I came back to Plato (with a bit of horror). I am deeply worried that I am reducing my theorizing into an ancient box, but for the moment I will explore this connection for what it is worth.

A possible "core category" for my theory is what I have called "essay success" (or "writing success"). The concept of essay success, however, seems to fit this school context since it encompasses other aspects of the task than just the writing. Everything is permeated with the influence of the concept of essay success. What problems are identified and recognized come from notions of essay success. What assessments and evaluations are made about the essay as well as the process of composing or the goals for revision are gauged against this notion of essay success. What counts as "coming to know" is that which is closest to essay success.

I have charted out that essay success related to conceptions of the ideal text and the real text. The ideal text equals a fulfillment of essay success; however, the writer's as well as the responder's grasp of ideal text is often (or how about always) imperfect. Likewise, our apprehension of the real text is also an imperfect representation. Peer response is a kind of measuring and matching of the real text against the ideal text. An imperfect understanding of either (or both) leads to difficulties.

These are the kinds of conceptual musings I have been doing with my categories, and it hit me as a kind of recognition that all of this business about essay success sounded a lot like Plato's notions of the Forms (or Ideas). Oh no. While I certainly don't ascribe to the belief that the Forms are immortal and unchangeable and live up in the Empyrean Heaven, I can see that they are another way of articulating the notion of mental models, schema, or representations (so often used by the cognitivist). Task representation. Well, that representation is based upon a mental picture and understanding of the task. What is this mental picture? this mental representation?

Plato, just as I have noticed the significance of this mental model, uses an analogy to communicate this importance. He sets up three components:
--the power of sight (our capacity to apprehend or take in, perception, what is inside us)
--the visible (outside reality)
--light

He states, "If sight is in the eyes, and the possessor tries to use it, and if color is in the things, you know, I suppose, that it will see nothing and the colors will be unseen unless a third thing is there specially created for this purpose" (Republic, VI 507B).

This third thing is light. We see nothing and the visible is not seen unless there is light. Of course, this view contradicts premises of positivistic science which believes no third thing is necessary. Observation is direct and unmediated. Plato may be fairly post-modern (ironically) here since he is saying that our "sight" is mediated and even enabled by something else. For him, it is the Forms--this ideal, abstract conception of things that serves like light to help us see (within ourselves) and makes apparent qualities of reality. Here is Plato making the comparison between the influence of light and knowledge:

"my meaning must appear to be that this, the offspring of the good which the good begat, is in relation to the good itself an analogy, and what the good effects, by its influence, in the regions of the mind, towards mind and things thought, this the sun effects, in the region of seeing, towards sight and things seen" (Republic, VI 508D).

The effect of "the good" is like the effects of light for our seeing. Plato goes on, then, to articulate a theory of epistemology from this analogy: "when it [the soul] settles itself firmly in that region in which truth and real being brightly shine, it understands and knows it and appears to have reason. ...Then that which provides their truth to the things known, and gives the power of knowing to the knower, you may say is the idea or principle of the good, and you must conceive it as being the cause of understanding and of truth in so far as known" (Republic, VI 508D-E). He goes on to distinguish knowledge and truth AS WE KNOW them are not the good. They are good-like.

Here is a scan of Plato's chart of this relationship.
I think I would need to dig deeper into Plato to get what the heck he is meaning with his equation.

What I think Plato gets at here, and it is exactly what I have been noticing, is the influence of the conception of "the good" or in this case "essay success"--the good piece of writing. He even goes so far as to say that the good is the cause of knowledge:

"Similarly with things known, you will agree that the good is not only the cause of their becoming known, but the cause that knowledge exists and of the state of knowledge, although the good is not itself a state of knowledge but something transcending far beyond it" (Republic, VI 508E). "Coming to know," realizing, figuring things out, seeing now, understanding all are rooted in the good. What counts as knowledge? That which is in alignment with the good.

So where does reflection come in? How does this work within the Writing Reviews. I can't say that this "thinking" only resides or is exclusively present in writing reviews, but what is happening is purely contrastive. Put this up to that. Contrast your text to the image of the ideal text in my head. Reflection, as Dewey noted, involves a "double-movement" which basically goes from the world to our conception of the world. It is out of this contrastive double-movement that I see students "coming to know." This fitting in bounds is the epistemological nature of reflection in the writing classroom.

I don't know if by bringing in Plato's thinking I am helping or not, but I can certainly see parallels between his connection of the Forms to knowledge and my own connection of essay success to what students learn. But I have to think about all this more... . Certainly this theory of epistemology has been critiqued by others.

The Conceptualization of Data

2010-05-01T06:12:00.000-06:00

Judith Holton in an article titled "The Coding Process and Its Challenges" within the Sage Handbook of Grounded theory sums up grounded theory and the coding process: "The conceptualization of data is the foundation of grounded theory development. The essential relationship between data and theory is the conceptual code" (266). It sounds simple, right? Who knew that in that little word "conceptualization" lay all the misery and mystery of research, as well as the source of so much disagreement.

This blog post won't examine many of Holton's interesting propositions about grounded theory as its own research paradigm or her thoughts about pre-conceptualization. Instead, I want to write for a few moments on the subject of description and conceptualization. Holton states: "To understand the nature of classic grounded theory, one must understand the distinction between conceptualization and description. Grounded theory is not about the accuracy of descriptive units, nor is it an act of interpreting meaning as ascribed by the participants in a study; rather, it is an act of conceptual abstraction" (272). Holton attempts in her article to distinguish GT from qualitative research methodologies, and you can see her do it in this quote surrounding the issue of description and interpretation. While I think her differentiation of GT from qualitative research is interesting, I am more interested in her discussion about the movement beyond description toward conceptualization.

I have struggled with this issue of moving beyond description in my own research. Corbin and Strauss stress that naming and labeling is a first step of open coding, yet it seems more mysterious as to how to arrive at "codes" that are conceptual in nature and not merely descriptive. Holton warns that those of us trained in qualitative research may latch onto what she calls "descriptive coding" "with its capacity to portray rich detail, multiple perspectives, and the voices of lived experience" (272). I have certainly felt this descriptive pull and done my fair share of it. At times I feel as if I'm lingering on the "ground" level of description waiting for the wings of conceptualization to pop up on my back and enable me to fly. Perhaps this flight will still happen.

Reading Holton, however, provided me with one anchor for this conceptualization process that I think I might find helpful. She is admittedly a Glaserian "classic" grounded theorists, and I have spent more time studying and using Strauss and Corbin as my guide (though I consider Dey a neutral mediator), so I hope that I don't "mix my method" by incorporating some of Glaserian practice. But Holton brings up Glaser's notion of the "concept-indicator model." I was not familiar with it (or had forgotten it), but it make sense. Holton gives an example of a number of in vivo, descriptive codes. The researcher then looks at these codes and asks, "What concept might these indicate?" What concept might these descriptive items/features indicate or be described by in a more abstract sense?

I am seeking to delineate the categories, properties, and dimensions of my data, so which comes first? The property or the category? Are properties the "indicators" of a concept (and a concept is the heart of a category)? Or do you get your category first and them map out its properties and dimensions? It all seems messy because I don't think this conceptualization process happens sequentially, nor can description ever be free of elements of conceptualization. Holton seems to acknowledge the messiness of this activity, and affirms that it is GT's methods that are most important to trust and follow through this process:

"The chaos is in tolerating the uncertainty and subsequent regression of not knowing in advance and of remaining open to what emerges through the diligent, controlled, often tedious application of the method's synchronous and iterative processes of line-by-line coding, constant comparison for interchangability of indicators, and theoretical sampling for core emergence and theoretical saturation" (273).

Chaos and uncertainty indeed. She calls GT a form of discipline, and she is right. I am getting more comfortable with this messiness and with the procedures of this methodology, and that includes becoming more at ease with the uncertainty. Interestingly, Holton brings up one warning that Glaser talks about related to when researchers begin to generate concept (true concepts!) from the data. They talk about an excitement that happens: "Captured by the imagery, or 'grab' (Glaser, 2001: 19-21) of the emerging concepts, they [the researcher(s)] switch their attention from abstraction to description" (273). It sounds like a possible danger is to jump back into the descriptive level to use the concept as an integrative descriptive tool too soon. I must remember not to do this.

Spinning wheels

2010-04-12T07:24:00.000-06:00

I don't know if the hot yoga cooked my brain yesterday or what, but I had trouble thinking this morning as I wrestled some more with my categories. It has come to me that I can group a number of categories together under one umbrella, but I'm struggling with the name for this grouping. I can say with clarity that I have seen this grouping or dynamic from the very beginning of my coding, and in fact slice #2 focused almost exclusively on this cluster. I showed it to my wife, and she said it reminded her of what they call algorithms in her pediatric references--there are certain elements and the flow between them varies. Here is the graphic of this algorithm for writer's reviews again:

I saw that I could chunk writing reviews into sets of these algorithms. A single WR would move from topic to topic and variously go through this sequence. For the most part they cycle toward the end point of "coming to know" and formulating a "revision goal." I think I will be redoing this diagram, but these categories that work together within this algorithm are:
--problem thinking
--feedback thinking
--assessing/reassessing
--coming to know
--revision/fixing thinking

What to call this cluster? I think this legitimately counts as a category because they all share these common elements, but at this point I can think of nothing more clever that "review topics." Categories are supposed to be conceptual in nature. That is not conceptual. What are they doing? What is happening? They are addressing writing issues and figuring out what to do about them. The one benefit of "review topics"is that it aligns with the prompt-determinism within all these Writing Reviews. Despite this prompt determinism, I can still see this dynamic at work. Maybe "addressing a writing issue." But sometimes the WRs ask to address topics that related to feedback or research. I'm still wrestling with this terminology.

I am also wresting with how to handle the "telling/reporting what is" vs. "considering/evaluating what is" dichotomy. This dynamic is important because I believe it marks the divide between awareness and reflection, between representing reflective thinking and engaging in it. It occurred to me in the shower (no kidding) that perhaps these two qualities operate on the dimensional level. I can have problem thinking on audience which could be reported thinking or it could be presently considered. The category or subject does not change, but it could be considered in either of these two ways. Hmm. I will have to see how this way of representing the data will work. I also have struggled about where to place the very important concepts of "fitting in bounds" and "essay/writing success." Are essay success and writing success sub-categories of "fitting in bounds." OR is the concept of essay success again something that operates on the dimensional level. Whenever a writing issue is considered or problem identified or plan conceived, EVERYTHING is gauged against the concept of essay success. It is the ultimate goal and arbiter of everything.

I'm just not sure how or where to fit "essay success" into the dynamic. I'm halfway tempted to make it the core category, but I'm this cluster I have talked about here might be the core category.

I'm struggling here because I feel that I am leaping out of open coding into axial coding and it hurts my brain.

I don't really like these terms as yet.

Pushing down on mercury

2010-04-07T07:45:00.000-06:00

I'm struggling with the slippery aspects of my coding right now. My goal is to try and nail down my categories (add any if necessary) and then work out properties and dimensions. It isn't easy. However, I am seeing in slice 5 so far a very familiar pattern revolving around problem identification and "resolution." This pattern is one I identified in slice 2, and I charted out the many paths a student follows as they move from problem to "coming to know" and then declaring a revision goal.

My mind is so full of all the stuff going on that I think for the moment I will focus on one aspect of this dynamic I have seen in the draft cycle from my 1301 student #2. He had four problem identification-resolution cycles in his Writing Review. The first was short, but the other three were fairly extended. This dynamic seems to center around conflicting views between outside and inside the writer, and the entire dynamic is mitigated or driven or regulated by the abstract criteria of "essay success" (which could be more general "writing success" outside of the particular goals/criteria for the essay task).

Here are the three

Sequence A: problem = thesis
Feedback--not there <<<>>> Author--thought it was there
-------conflicting views---------------
Resolution
a--take authorities word for it (they are right)
b--self-check and confirm (COMING TO KNOW)
Revision Goal--make strong thesis

Sequence B: problem = contradiction
Feedback--you tend to contradict (id instance)<<<>>> Author--tried to avoid
*expresses doubt or disbelief they did it when they were trying expressly not to*
Resolution
a--take authority's word for it
Revision Goal--fix contradiction

Sequence C: problem = to casual, use of generic "you"
Feedback--too casual/you <<<>>> Author--double-checks and agrees
*agreement on problem*
COMPLICATION FOR RESOLVING PROBLEM
criteria of writing success--relate to reader vs. how to reach goal without using "you"
Resolution
a-take authority's word for it
Revision Goal--avoid "you"

I can notice a few things in these three patterns. First, there seems to be more negotiation or consideration revolving around the problem. Only the third sequence had any sort of complication about the solution and that was more a matter of facing a goal and not knowing how to get there without getting in trouble. Little or no extended consideration is given to the revision goals. I could do this or I could do that. If I did this then it would result in X, but if I did that it would result in Y. I think Y would work better because... . None of this "reflective thinking" occurs. Instead, the writer like a compass pointing to true north follows the view point of an authority. I am calling this phenomena right now [taking authority's word]. I might call it taking other's word for it. Rather than taking my word for it.

Authority's word is like a trump card. What is the source of their trumping power. Well, it is the power to grade and it is their power as arbiter of the criteria for essay success. They possess both the vision of this abstract essay success, but presumably they possess better skills at enacting that success than the student so when they speak you'd better listen.

I don't know if I am getting at anything interesting yet, but I am working at it. I am targeting getting materials ready to do a round of peer debriefing on my categories as soon as I can do it. Soon!

Coding: Of Categories, Properties, and Dimensions

2010-04-02T07:14:00.000-06:00

As Ian Dey notes, the conceptual elements of categories, properties, and dimensions can be a muddle and the distinction between them can get confused. Since one of my main goals with this slice 5 will be to code categories and sub-categories for their properties and dimensions, I am seeking with this post to clarify distinctions and definitions (so I know what I’m doing). I hope to establish a loose anchor to guide my coding in this post: that is, a framework for analysis that is not too rigid or mechanistic, but one provide general guidance that allows for flexibility in discovery. Yet, I don’t want this framework to be so loose that I wander through my analysis making contradictions all along the way.

Guiding Principle
Let it happen.
“An analyst is coding for explanations and to gain an understanding of phenomena” (Strauss and Corbin 129).
Strauss and Corbin describe the confusion that exists for analysts as they rigidly try to categorize things/events into the boxes of their coding, especially when they code the same event or happening in two different ways. They state, “We realize that beginners need structure and that placing data into descrete boxes makes them feel more in control of their analyses. However, we want them to realize that such practices tend to prevent them from capturing the dynamic flow of events and the complex nature of relationships that, in the end, make explanations of phenomena interesting, plausible, and complete” (129). They advise “to let it happen.” Rigor and vigor, they say, will follow.

Categories
A category is an abstract label used as a heading or name for a class of objects, events, happenings that share similar characteristics. It is the most logical descriptor for what is going on. The distinction between “concept” and “category” can be confusing. In a sense, all coding (categories, properties, dimensions) is conceptual in that you are creating an abstract representation of the phenomena. Categories are said to be groupings of concepts that are labeled or named phenomena by like or similar characteristics. Dey presents a good critique of this generation of categories through groupings according to similarities and differences, and says we must be more reflective about how we generate and use them (255).

Strauss and Corbin--
“Categories: Concepts that stand for phenomena.” (101)

Dey:
“Category—used as a way to identify or distinguish something based on comparisons with other things.” (252)

Sub-categories
Sub-categories specify a category more by denoting information such as when, where, why, and how. It seems like the notion of sub-categories and properties might be confusing. If for example, we had the category “drug using” (example from Strauss and Corbin), then a sub-category might be “types of drugs.” Grouped within “types of drugs” would the different drugs (cocaine, pot, ecstasy ect.). These sub-categories would then have properties such as forms, effects, how used. We shall see about sub-categories. (I think I need to see more examples.)

Strauss and Corgin offer a definition of sub-categories:
“Subcategories: Concepts that pertain to a category, giving it further clarification and specification.” (101)

Properties
Properties are the recognizable characteristics or attributes or the phenomena. These attributes determine how it is classified or categorized.

Strauss and Corbin simply state properties are the
“Characteristics of a category, the delineation of which defines and gives it meaning.” (101)

Dey--
“Property—used to ascribe a quality or attribute to something based on analyzing its interactions with other things” (252)

Again, I am somewhat unclear how to distinguish a sub-category from a property.

Dimensions represent the location of a property, that is a characteristic or attribute, along a continuum or range. Dimensions measure degree, not kind.

Strauss and Corbin--
“The range along which general properties of a category vary, giving specification to a category and variation to a theory.” (101)

Dey--
“Dimensions—used to measure extension.” (252)

So we have a few examples of the category, property, dimension breakdown:

Category: Color
Properties: shade, hue, intensity
Dimensions: high/bright----low/faint
(from bright shade to faint shade, from high hue to faint hue, from high intensity to low intensity)

Category: Orange (as in fruit)
Properties: size, color, shape, weight, cost
Dimensions: high/big/bright----low/small/faint
(large size to small size, bright color to faint color, big shape to small shape?, high cost to low cost)

The problem with these examples of categories, properties, and dimensions is they are of THINGS and not PHENOMENA. Still they are helpful in seeing the relationship between properties and dimensions. Dimensions provide the description of variation and degree of phenomena.

Dey ends his book by quoting what Strauss and Corbin identify as the central features of the grounded theory methodology. I will present these in list form:
1. the grounding of theory upon data through data-theory interplay
2. the making of constant comparisons
3. the asking of theoretically oriented questions
4. theoretical coding
5. the development of theory (269)

So my quest in this next slice of coding will be to articulate the properties of my categories more explicitly and identify the dimensions or range that these attributes fall within. This post has helped my establish distinctions I can use in my analysis, but I must remember that these distinctions remain a loose anchor and my overall goal remains to “coding for explanations and to gain an understanding of phenomena” as best I can.

My goal will be next to begin my coding discuss my own categories along these lines of properties and dimensions.

Key Methodological Goals for Slice 5

2010-03-31T07:58:00.000-06:00

Memo 3/31/10

As I dive into coding slice 5, I have attempted to reorient my conceptual and interpretive antennae for how I will be looking at the data. (Note: This antennae is not so much about “what” I will look for in the data, though it may be phrased that way.)

Two major goals for this coding:
1)Develop my categories (and sub-categories) in terms of specific properties and dimensions
2)Evolve key elements of the “warrant” for my emerging grounded theory analysis
a.The verisimilitude and coherence with which I portray the “ground” (or phenomena) I am explaining/studying
b.The vitality of the concepts (the names of categories/properties/dimensions) I use to draw attention to important aspects of the ground
(from Piantanida and Tananis 2002)

Let me state this in other terms. First, I want to map out my conceptual description and explanation of my phenomena of study (ground). I have not yet done this formally along the lines of category/property/dimension. As Dey states, the distinction among these aspects of concepts is often confused. What will make a difference, I believe, is that also in this process I examine the conceptual framework I am establishing to see where it needs tweaking and adjustment. To do this, I will of course be open to the appearance of new categories. But I also think I will take my coding and analysis to a number of peers to see if they believe I am accurately describing the phenomenon and whether my terms are “vital” enough. What am I missing? How could I use language differently to capture things better? The presumption here is that as I evolve my “terministic screen” (my framework of abstract conceptualization) and as I refine my sense of the phenomena, my emerging theorizing will likewise be sharpened and more open to fruitful “densifying.”

This slice will also move me toward axial coding where I begin to search for relationships between categories and how their properties relate along dimensional levels.

Next post: Coding--Of categories, properties and dimensions (didn’t get to it this morning.)

About Slice 5 Memo

2010-03-28T07:33:00.000-06:00

This memo will be discuss general characteristics of slice 5 of my data and goals for coding. For this slice, I have grabbed what could be called single loops in the drafting cycle. The entire loop contains:

Draft A
--DI comments
--2 peer reviews
Writer’s Review
Draft B
--DI comments

The slice includes 12 loops, each from a different student. 6 loops from Fall 2005 1301 students and 6 loops from Spring 1302 students. Fall 04/Spring 05 1301 student samples were excluded because the drafting cycle did not have students make repeated attempts at the same general task. Instead, each draft was a separate but contributing activity toward the final draft. In Fall 05/Spring 06 the 1301 curriculum was adjusted and what I would consider a more normal drafting cycle was reestablished.

Notes on 1301 drafts:
I have taken three loops that go from draft 1.2 to 1.3 and three from draft 3.2-3.3. Essay #1 was an “Exploratory Essay” where student explored the meaning of a puzzling experience. In draft 1.1 they simply described the situation, established the question, and explained the significance of the question. In draft 1.2 they were supposed to show readers how they have explored their research question and what they have found at this point. The final draft 1.3 states, “The final draft of this essay cycle should continue your exploration and present readers with the results of your exploration.” It amounts to a more polished and detailed draft of 1.2, so this loop represents a good target area to see what I would consider task oriented reflection,

The second loop from 1301 was between the last essay of the semester (they only did three essays?). It is a problem-posing/problem-solving essay. Draft 3.1 simply explored and charted out the territory of the problem, its possible causes, and why others might find it interesting. In draft 3.2 the writer was supposed to write from researching the problem. They were to describe the problem and its context more and propose one solution. Draft 3.3 is the final draft and adds the piece that two or three possible solutions were to be discussed and weighed. Then the writer was supposed to recommend one solution. Draft 3.3 is a building draft and retains the same core elements of the writing task, so getting a writing review between 3.2 and 3.3 also is a good target area for me.

Notes on 1302 Drafts:
I have taken three loops from draft 1.3 to 1.4 (they did four drafts of two essays in 1302). This essay is a formal persuasive letter. Draft 1.1 students wrote a decision maker about an issue (problem) and try to convince them to do something about it. Draft 1.2 students wrote the same audience but argued the opposing position. Draft 1.3 is a letter written from the decision maker back to the student. No side for the argument is specified. In draft 1.4 students returned to draft 1.1-2 were they were writing to the decision maker. It is a fuller, finished persuasive argument toward this decision maker. The drafting sequence is very interesting and while the writer takes different perspectives in draft 1.2 and 1.3, the same core issue and arguments remains the same. My one concern with this loop is that the Writing Review topic is not so great. It prompts the writer to do two things: identify peer suggestions and “how you will improve because of them,” and relate two things from some reading that the writer will do (or are doing) that will improve the draft. What I will be interested to see is how much writers go beyond these prompts to use this activity to engage in reflective thinking.

The second 1302 loop goes from draft 2.1 to 2.2. This loop represents my only non-last draft loop, so I will be interested in what it shows. Draft 2.1 is a Research Proposal and involved identifying and describing the writer’s choices for topic, research question, and audience/purpose. It even asks for these items to be identified with sub-headings. As such, it really isn’t the draft but more of an invention document. Draft 2.2 is described as “Revising the Research Proposal” and represents a more detailed and refined proposal. It asks the writer to share primary and secondary research questions and list at least three subject areas that “you will research.” In the essay cycle, the students go on to write two more drafts and an annotated bibliography, so we have the preliminary planning and shaping of the research project in draft 2.1 to 2.2. The movement between these two loops, however, clearly represents a second and more refined attempt at the same task.

This is a large sample of student work, perhaps too large. However, I feel that I want a closer and broader look at the place of the writing review within the draft to draft essay cycle.

How is Slice 5 “concept driven?” How is this theoretical sampling? What hypotheses about relationships between categories will I be verifying?

As I look at slice 5 is seems more oriented to get a representative sample. Corbin and Strauss state that, “Sampling in grounded theory proceeds not in terms of drawing samples of specific groups of individuals, units of time, and so on, but in terms of concepts, their properties, dimensions, and variables.” I certainly appear to be pulling from particular groups. However, I also desire to build as much possible basis for comparison as I can. That is why I wanted both 1301 and 1302 students in this slice. So what are the concepts and hypotheses I will be exploring in this slice?

Slice 4 asked the question about what role writing reviews played in a single students entire freshman composition experience 1301-1302. It sought to gain a broad perspective on these reflective activities within both the development of essays and the movement from essay to essay during an entire semester. This big picture view was fruitful, and I emerged from slice 4 with deeper insights and more questions.

The importance of “essay success”—I found in slice 4 that the conception of “essay success” was enormously important for both identifying problems and proposing revisions to fix the problem. Essay success represents the textual and rhetorical features of the essay that meet the assignment and writing situation. It is the goal everyone is trying to reach. The influence this concept has on the entire process is pervasive, and a large goal of this slice 5 coding is to verify and “densify” my understanding of the dynamics at work surrounding this concept.

I also saw a repeated pattern that almost all writing reviews followed. I postulated that this pattern is prompted by the writing review topics and the paradigm of error/correction thinking with which students approach the writing review (and revision). The pattern generally follows a sequence where X is considered in terms of whether if “fit in bounds.” It is held up and measured against the concept of essay success. At this point the writer “comes to know” something that leads them to articulate a revision/writing goal. Again the selection of this goal as well as the strategies and tactics is shaped by notions of essay success. What I am seeing, thus, within the data I have coded so far is how important this understanding of essay success is for making choices and solving problems within the writing process.

Coming to Know and It’s Complicated Relationship with Revision
I found three common patterns within slice 4 that I’d like to verify in slice 5 as well. They were:
--to see is to know and to do (successfully)
--to miss-see is to miss-know and to miss-do
--to see is to know and not be able to do/or choose not to do
This finding has to do with the role of awareness and the emergence of new insight or thinking. Probably the two most common subjects to “come to know” about are the nature of the problem and what the solution should/will be. I am interested, of course, in the relationship I can see between the thinking in their Writing Reviews and the revisions they make in the next draft. Right now, it appears to be a complicated relationship.

But here we get into deeper questions I have had all along about these writer’s reviews. Many are filled with reporting of actions and previous thinking. Many articulate awarenesses, but rarely engage in evaluation of these awarenesses or explore multiple possible viewpoints and suggestions about the problem or solution. Judging them by notions of reflection from Higgins and Flower, these students’ awareness does not rise to the level of reflective thinking. Why is there so much reporting? How much active reflective thinking occurs within these writing reviews? Do we see students “coming to know” via reflection done INSIDE the activity of the writing review (i.e. the writing triggered the insight) or does the reflection REPORT a coming to know that occurred OUTSIDE the actual writing of the review. What place does reporting reflective thinking have?

These are questions that I am interested in pursuing more deeply. I feel like looking at this slice 5 sample will help me find out answers to these questions because
a) it is a whole loop, so I will see the relationship of the reflection draft to draft
b) I will look at 12 students’ work, so I will get a broader view than from the single student as before

A significant goal of this slice is to develop my concepts more in terms of their “dimensions” and “properties.” I have incorporated elements of these properties in the long names I have for concepts. For instance, look at this category I have:
Considering/evaluating how/why is (and what could/should/may/must/will be)
A big goal of mine will be to record in more detailed terms the properties of these concepts and the dimensions of each property. So far, I have not systematically charted these out, and I’d like to do that some. One passage from Strauss illustrates this kind of coding: “One procedure that contributes measurably to densifying is that data are coded … in terms of cross cutting dimensions (for instance, external connections that are safe; external connectiosn that are unsafe; external unsafe connections that are frightening; internal connections that are safe and frightening and uncomfortable, etc. ).” This effort to cross-cut dimensions should prove interesting.

I am near ready to begin coding, but I am spending a bit of time refreshing my memory about both how to code and about what my previous coding has revealed. I need to keep pressing. The goal of this slice will be to solidify my categories and begin to densify my emerging theories about relationships between these categories.

The Whale Draft Review

2010-03-15T09:36:00.000-06:00

Last Friday I turned in my draft of the Lit Review for my dissertation. I have christened it the Whale draft. Since my Proposal was essentially my Chapter 1 of the dissertation, I put it together with my lit review. The monster came in at roughly 59,000 words and 138 pages single spaced (not including the Works Cited which I didn't do for this draft). Whale draft indeed.

As I turn now to focus on finishing my research, I want to do some thinking about what I have gained from this review. My thinking is fairly scattered, so to give it shape I will coalesce "things" or "take aways" or insights gained.

1. I think I see more clearly the two flavors of reflection that I have titled rhetorical reflection and curricular reflection. The key distinguishing factor seems to be WHEN the reflection is done, and that timing to a large degree is dictated by WHY the reflection is done. I see how much in education we have been dominated by post-task reflection. These approaches seem rooted oddly enough in thinking coming out of Experiential learning (i.e. Boud et al.). It could be that Boud is representative of this trend toward using reflection to process past experiences rather than generative in his own right. The Deweyian approach toward reflection that begins with a puzzle or problem and seeks in an on-going and present sense to solve the problem is neglected.

So my lit review has given me a broad basis for saying my own subject of research is one that is needed more attention. I think I established this "gap" in my elaboration of rhet/comp's "portfolio-centric" view of reflection. I don't know if that term works, but I have sure fallen into using it.

2. Another gain from this lit review is a much deeper sense of what I refer to as the "Open Question" about reflection. I have established fairly well what I call the "value-added assumption" about reflection. (This term is another one I coined and I hope makes sense). We impute certain values and outcomes to reflection; however, these don't always happen. So the discrepancy between our theories about reflection and what we really know about it constitutes the second gap which my research seeks to enter or justify itself based upon. This discrepancy is at the heart of the Open Question. Because reflection does not appear to fulfill its promise "enough," we have questions about whether and how we should use it.

3. Depth. I can say that this lit review has provided me with substantial depth for my eventual lit review. I seems likely that the actual lit review will emerge from my "Story of reflection in composition/rhetoric"and that in appropriate places I will infuse background information from Boud, Mezirow, Moon, and Schon. I won't have to have separate sections on these theorists (I think), but I will be able to discuss them in reference to writing and reflection. I now have a much firmer understanding and grounding in these different theorists/scholars work on reflection, so I can summarize their work with more confidence.

4. The work of King and Kitchener looms large in my thinking. I found enough evidence in other research in composition confirming their developmental theories that I feel as if I had an article I could put together just on this coalescence. Maybe, just maybe the problems surrounding student reflections might be caused by the fact that collect students are in a pre-reflective or quasi-reflective stage of cognitive development. They are not ready to engage in reflective thinking! What does this mean for my research? What sort of thinking can we expect students to engage in within writer's reviews? I will have to keep my eyes open but try as best as I can not to let their theories prejudice my observations.

5. I believe that I have found much evidence for "it depends" and "what it depends on" in relation to reflection. Whether students engage in what we might call productive reflection (where our assumptions about the value-added benefits of reflection are realized or nearly realized) depends upon a number of factors. Schon's four factors, as well as factors related to task representation, knowledge, and cognitive development, and then even the support offered by the learning context for reflection, all appear to be significant "dependent" factors or causal variables. Can we say one stands out among the others? Will the level of cognitive development trump all the others?

6. The literature review process has provided pretty good fodder to justify my methodology of grounded theory. This justification comes from two sources. Since we have accepted assumptions and focused on developing the habit of reflection, we have not asked enough exactly what is going on and how it works. We have not dug into its actual mechanics (I don't like that term). Grounded theory digs into the mechanics. Also, we have nearly always used other theories to make sense of reflections (like Anson using Halliday) rather than see what sort of sense these reflections make on their own. This justification for another approach to researching reflection is in a way experimental in that others have not done it before (rather than testing anything other than perhaps the methodology of grounded theory). I feel that my methodological argument is suspect to a degree, but I think I can present it as it is with its own limitations. I have a feeling that the most powerful aspect of my dissertation may be in how it links to other theories/theorists in reflection. Maybe. I don't know.

7. This lit review really got cut off. Since I received my "get to it" message from Fred and Rich, I have tried to bring the lit review to a more rapid close. Where did I not go in as depth as I wanted to? I really wanted to spend more time on the cognitivists, especially Flower's work (and her collaborative work with many others). I also felt like I could have done a lot more with Beireter and Scarmadalia. I was not able to do the thorough review on their work like I had done for Boud, Schon, and King and Kitchener. This gap may come back to bite me later on. We shall see. Still, I did put together what I felt was references to key ideas expressed by the cognitivists.

8. I'm left with lots of article ideas in my head. Here are just a few:
--I ended up gravitating toward graphical representations more and more in the lit review. I have enough models or graphics depicting different models of reflection, I thought I could do a whole article looking at these models. A collection of graphics on reflection.
--I think I could do an article on confirmations of K&K's theories inside composition research. These would almost be like circumstantial evidence confirming the work of King and Kitchener
--An article critiquing the portfolio-centric perspective on reflection that we maintain. This persists with the focus on transfer.
--I'd love to do a retrospective article reviewing the work of Flower and the National Center on Research in Writing. Their research articles are quite amazing.
--I also felt that more could be done related to Schon's four constants of reflection, particularly his notion of "appreciative systems." I think the four constants could be quite productive lenses for pursuing research.

For the time being, this literature review will lie low. I can't put it completely out of my head, but as I turn once again to data analysis, I must be conscious of looking at the data upon its own merits and understanding it for what it is first. I can't ignore this theory, and eventually it will provide rich substance for interpretation, but I must not let it predetermine or bias what I am looking for or what I think I am seeing (as much as that is possible).

Reviewing Chris Anson's “Talking About Writing: A Classroom-based Study of Student Reflections on Their Drafts.”

2010-03-03T05:17:00.000-06:00

I will now examine in more detail Chris Anson’s investigation discussed in “Talking About Writing: A Classroom-based Study of Student Reflections on Their Drafts.” This study, along with Sharon Pianko’s, are the only two research studies within rhetoric/composition that use the terminology of reflection as they focus on in-task reflection.

In some ways, Anson’s research can be seen as an extension of Pianko’s work. Both researchers are trying to learn more about the novice writers in composition classrooms by comparing them to expert writers. Pianko’s experimental study concluded that a key difference between the writing processes of these two groups was the reflective pauses and rescanning that occurred while these writers wrote. In her study, she had students compose an essay within one classroom period and observed them as they wrote. She also questioned them right after they wrote. From this research, she noticed not only a difference in the number of pauses, but a difference in their quality as well. She describes the pauses of the remedial writers as “unfilled” because they looked outside their writing as they paused. For the more experienced, traditional group of freshman writers, she noticed a pattern in their pauses:

When I observed these students writing, I noticed a pattern: they paused, rescanned, then paused again. These behaviors were indicative of certain mental processes: a pause was to plan or “rehearse” (to use Don Murray’s term) what to write next—what Janet Emig calls a “filled pause”—a rescanning to reorient oneself with the writing to see if the “rehearsal” was a fit, and again a pause to reformulate or revise the mental plan or “rehearsal.” (276)

Pianko describes these pauses and rescannings as the behavioral manifestation of reflection during composing and claims this behavior is the most significant finding about the composing process of her study. She concludes, “The ability to reflect on what is being written seems to be the essence of the difference between able and not so able writers” (277). The implication for teaching she advocates, then, is for teachers to incorporate teaching strategies into their curriculum that would promote proficiency in these behaviors of reflective pausing and rescanning.
--important echos with Bereiter and Scarmandalia, even Schon’s reflective conversation with the situation going from what is in the head to what is on the page, what is on the page is the situation of action

Anson’s focus of inquiry is a bit different. His interest is on how writers represent emerging texts through retrospective accounts of their writing, or what he calls reflective metacommentary. Whereas Pianko focused on what Anson calls “the ‘live’ or ‘concurrent’ processes of writing”(62)—similar to that performed by cognitive researchers like Emig and Flower and Hayes when they examined composing-aloud protocols—Anson is interested in retrospective accounts of in-progress drafts. In contrast to composing-aloud protocols, Anson claims these retrospective accounts allow writers to reveal both tacit and focal decisions as they composed. The terms focal and tacit come from Polyani’s description of different aspects of thought. Focal refers to our conscious thought and what we are attending to, while tacit knowledge is predominantly unconscious and refers to those decisions and strategies we make and do without thinking about them. Anson states that our understanding about the thinking that goes on as writers compose and the relationship between focal and tacit thought “is at best murky” (62). He believes retrospective accounts offer a “representation, or model, of writing” (63) where the researcher can better see the thinking of a writer:

retrospective accounts allow writers opportunities to uncover tacit decisions as well as focal ones. The process of standing outside their writing, looking it over, recalling what they did when they composed it, and thinking about what else they need to do taps into both the conscious creation and manipulation of text and what may have been, at the time, decisions made in the background of their attention. (62-63)

These retrospective accounts are not without their critics and limitations. These critiques include the limitations of the subject’s memory, the influence from the prompt on what the writer recalls, and the tendency for writers to embellish what happened (63). Tomlinson, as Anson points out, has identified the real strengths of these retrospective accounts: “although these accounts may not be useful in trying to understand precisely what happens during the writing process, they show us the writer’s representation of the writing event and its context” (Anson 63). These representations show us a window into how the writer thinks about their own writing and act of writing. Citing the work of T.B. Finley, Anson elaborates on the what these narratives about the composing of a text offer: “retrospective accounts give us insight into the writer’s knowledge, modes of inquiry, relationship to the text, social construction of an audience, stance, role, and routines” (63). As data, then, these retrospective accounts of in progress drafts are a rich source for researching students’ perspectives on writing.

It is worth noting that Anson’s data source closely resembles the Writer’s Reviews that form the main data for this inquiry. Each is a reflective account performed between drafts. A few differences exist, however. Whereas Writer’s Reviews are done in writing and done in response to a prompt, the retrospective accounts Anson examines were done verbally (into a tape recorder) and were not guided by strict prompts. Also, Anson’s reflective metacommentaries occur between only the first and second draft; whereas, Writer’s Reviews are done between first and second as well as second and third drafts. Despite these differences, Anson’s subject of inquiry closely resembles the focus for this research study. His arguments for what these reflective accounts reveal, then, provide a strong confirmation for the richness of Writing Reviews as a focus for research. Anson’s stance toward researching these pieces of reflection, however, differs in one significant way. He looks at these reflective accounts in a similar way as researchers studied transcripts of compose-aloud protocols—as a way to tap into writers’ thinking. My inquiry certainly is interested in what these accounts reveal about writers’ thinking between drafts, but it is also interested in what having students reflect in this way does. If we return for a moment to Flower’s “open questions” about reflection, we can see her two questions within the different stances toward this data between Anson and this inquiry. Flower’s first question was what kind of knowledge reflection generates, and we can see that Anson’s inquiry explores this epistemological dimension of reflection. Flower’s second question asks if having students perform reflections as a pedagogical activity is worthwhile (is it just a luxury?). This second question addresses the value-added assumptions we have about the benefits of having students reflect, and it is a question that Anson does not address. This inquiry differs from Anson’s because it approaches these reflective accounts for what pedagogical influence asking students to perform them has upon their thinking and writing. It asks not just what these reflections show but also what they might do.

Anson’s research is interesting not only because of his different stance toward the data, but also for how he approached the analysis of this data. In order to “move beyond mere impressions” in his analysis of these retrospective accounts, he turns to Halliday’s theory’s of language. He leans on theory to help him make sense of this data: “I found Halliday’s (1973) functional approach in language best captured what I was observing informally in the taped accounts” (64). He interpolates Halliday’s theory so that in his analysis he coded the ideational function as referring to content matters, the interpersonal function as referring to discussions of audience and purpose, and the textual function as referring to discussions of the formal and linguistic features of the writing on the page. These categories proved useful to Anson, but interestingly he also noted the significance of the kairotic nature of these reflective accounts: “The more tapes I studied, the more compelling became this orientation of time in the students’ talk” (65). This observation about the importance of time leads him to generate three more categories for students’ discussions about their writing: retrospective comments focusing on the past, projective comments focused on what the writer intends or wants to do in the future, and temporal comments where the writer talks about the text as it is in the present tense. Anson then put these two sets of categories into a grid with Halliday’s theoretical concepts along one axis and the temporal aspects along the other axis:

Ideational

Interpersonal

Textual

Temporal Retrospective Projective

Figure NHY: Anson’s coding grid for analyzing between-draft reflections

This coding scheme, however elegant and sensible, differs also from this inquiry’s approach to analyzing similar reflective pieces of writing. By using theory to make sense of data, Anson has done what Glaser and Strauss say often leads to a bias or predisposition in our perception of the phenomena of study. These categories may account for much that is going on within student reflections, but they also may miss or ignore other features. As a grounded theory study, this research project seeks to generate a theory from the data rather than impose any theory upon the data.

As Anson analyzed his students’ reflective accounts of their writing, he particularly sought to find differences between strong, proficient writers and poor writers in his classes. Anson observed that the reflective accounts of weaker writers who lacked control in their writing talked almost exclusively in retrospective and textual terms. Stronger writers who displayed much more control in their writing process were observed to shift among functional and temporal categories. Weak writers spoke in dualistic terms where writing was seen to be either “correct” or “incorrect.” These writers also had little capacity for uncertainty and tended to defer to authority. Looking to Newman’s extension of Perry’s model of intellectual development, Anson fit these writers into Newman’s stage of Absolutism. In this stage of attitudes toward knowledge, individuals “[believe] in the absolute truth or falsity of knowledge” (70). Although not referring to the work of King and Kitchener’ Model of Reflective Judgment, these writers would fall within the stage of pre-reflective thinkers. More proficient writers, in contrast, fell within Newman’s third stage called Evaluativism where the individual “accepts various opinions and beliefs, but does so from a conviction that some ideas are more valid (better reasoned, more logical, etc.) than others” (70). These writers might entertain multiple suggestions for revising a problematic feature of their writing before deciding upon the best path for revision. In these writers he also noticed a relationship between tentativeness or the ability to accept and explore uncertainty and the writers’ ownership of their future decisions. These writers seemed more able to assess problems within their writing and work to solve them.

In contrast, the weaker writers were much more focused upon outside authority for making decisions about their writing and seemed incapable of acknowledging uncertainty. Particularly present within these writers’ minds was their image of this outside authority and standard of correctness: “Instead they measure their texts against what must be a very sketchy, nebulous image of the teachers ‘standards,’ an image they try to fill in and clarify from various sources (including direct appeal)” (70). This writerly superego dominates their model of writing and limits their activity of writing within its bounds. Not surprisingly, Anson finds that these writers don’t reach any level of reflective thinking: “Ironically, the tapes themselves, designed to create an opportunity for reflection, become for these students an extension of the process of teacherly judgment” (70). Placed in a position to reflect, these writers are unable to do so.

Anson ends his article stressing two points. The first point is his key finding from his informal study: “Although no informal analysis like this one can yield foolproof conclusions or razor-sharp patterns, it appears that there is a strong relationship between proficiency and the blending/shifting of functions in scheme I had developed” (72). Put in other terms, Anson finds a strong correlation between students’ ability to engage in reflective thinking and their competence in writing. His second concluding point has to do with the implications of his research for teaching writing. His research has indicated the significance of how students think about and represent their writing. He believes that as teachers we need to focus as much or even more on developing students’ models of writing as their success on any particular writing assignment: “I have come to value the development of their [students] models of writing even more than I value the improvement of their texts” (73). He shares his own methods for moving students toward more evaluatistic and reflective thinking through the kinds of assignments and feedback he gives to his students.

Anson’s research upon reflective writing that closely resembles the kind this inquiry is focused on has a number of important implications for this research. His observation that strong writers are also good reflectors raises a number of questions. What link exactly is there between these two capacities? Does good reflection cause good writing? Also, where does the capacity for strong reflection come from? Is it as King and Kitchener imply something determined by their developmental stage of epistemic cognition? Anson’s observations seem to provide strong confirmation that students’ developmental level of views of knowledge, in fact, does have a strong influence upon both their type of thinking and their writing. However, can we prompt a growth in students’ reflective thinking, and if prompted will students’ produce more proficient writing? Anson seems to believe we can at the least move students in that direction. He states, “By asking students to tell me more about their intentions, I can prompt them to go beyond a mere report of ‘having done something’ and towards a discussion of their struggles and possible directions” (73). This question surrounding the teacherly prompting and promoting of reflective thinking through the assigning of reflective writing tasks is what this inquiry is all about. If provided guidance and the opportunity, will students truly reflect? Can we say that development is possible through this prompting, and what influence does engaging students in this teacher-prompted reflection have upon their writing? As my inquiry seeks it own answers to these questions, the work of Anson will certainly offer important perspectives.

Get to it!

2010-02-12T09:07:00.000-06:00

I had lunch with Fred day before yesterday, and I am still trying to process our discussions. I got the message fairly clearly that I need to push on through and "get it done." This imperative is throwing me off center for a couple of reasons that I think come down to "task representation." My conception of this task of the dissertation may be too grand and large. Fred seems to say that the dissertation is really a smaller task than I may have been thinking of it as. Just get it done.

I have been reviewing in close detail the thinking of the major theorists and scholars related to reflection since last summer. I have about 45K words and I'm not done yet reviewing reflection in the field of composition rhetoric. And now I hear the call to be much more pragmatic and do what I need to do to get the damn thing done. This call is a bit scary to me because it pushes me to the end game earlier than I am ready (I feel), but on another account I am enjoying this close review. I am hammering out and constructing my understanding and perspective on these thinkers and past work on reflection. I've just finished writing 11 pages and 5K+ words demonstrating that we have a "portfolio-centric" view of reflection in our field and that Yancey misinterprets Schon's notion of reflection-in-action when she bootstraps it into reflection in the writing classroom. I don't know, but I feel like I need to earn the right to say some of the things I know I will say in the dissertation by doing this thorough background work. I don't think I can spend twenty pages in my lit review in the dissertation going into comp/rhets portfolio-centric framework on reflection and where Yancey when wrong with reflection-in-action. BUT, I think I will be able to say with more confidence these things in briefer form within the dissertation with this background work behind me.

So what do I do? For right now, I feel that I need to keep pushing on at the cumbersome rate I am going a bit longer. I need to dig into research done on reflection-in-action (the little there is) and especially look at the work done by the cognitivist. I suppose I might be a bit more streamline in places where I might name or point out that there is a bunch of stuff on "whatever" but I don't have to thoroughly dig into it in detail.

As a deadline, I think I will HAVE to finish this first draft of the lit review by no later than the end of Spring Break. I believe I will be well positioned then to "get it done!"

Oh... so what did Yancey get wrong about reflection-in-action? Here is an excerpt:

"It is clear from her use of the term “reflection-in-action” that Yancey is redefining the concept in her own terms. Whereas before she has represented reflection-in-action as the thinking occurring while the writer writes, here she seems to broadly define it as the post-task reflection that occurs on a single text. She offers this definition of reflection-in-action: “Reflection-in-action tends to be embedded in a single composing event, tends to be oriented to a single text, its focus squarely on the writer-reader-text relationship and on the development of that text” (26). Nothing exclusively locates this form of reflection as post-task; however, her portfolio-centric view of reflection leads her conceive of this reflection as a kind of portfolio cover letter but on a single essay cycle."

How this inquiry connects to traditionally important concerns of the field

2010-01-23T10:37:00.003-06:00

(draft of introduction to second section of lit review)

I want to turn for a few moments to position this inquiry within traditionally important concerns of composition/rhetoric: namely, the revival of invention and the emergence of what has been called "epistemic rhetoric." Richard Young's 1978 article "Paradigms and Problems: Needed Research in Rhetorical Invention" provides one significant demonstration of the deep roots this investigation possesses.

Coming four years before Maxine Hairston's article "The Winds of Change: Thomas Kuhn and the Revolution in the Teaching of Writing," Young speaks of a paradigm shift away from the current-traditional rhetoric's teaching of writing as a product to an emphasis on invention and the teaching of writing as a process. As Janice Lauer has documented, the new focus on invention in the 1960s was the primary means for reviving interest in rhetoric and calling for change in the field (74). Lauer points specifically to Gordon Rohman and Albert Wlecke's 1964 research into "pre-writing" (and Rohman's 1965 CCC article), Edward Corbett's Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student, and Richard Young and Alton Beckers first accounts in 1965 of tagmetric invention as significant milestones in this new emphasis on invention and rhetoric within composition/rhetoric (78-80). Young recounts this time period as a crisis in the field of composition/rhetoric in which the current-traditional paradigm was "repeatedly attacked for its failure to provide effective instruction in what is often called the ‘prewriting stage’ of the composing process and in the analytical and synthetic skills necessary for good thinking" (400). He blames the failure for the development of the skills of invention on the field's response to the problem from within the paradigm of current-traditional rhetoric. He points specifically to the vitalist, or Romantic, assumption that the creative processes behind the generation of writing "are not susceptible to conscious control by formal procedures" (399). The uniqueness of the creative act cannot be formulated or taught; hence, current-traditional rhetoric's emphasis on the final product and the exclusion of the art of invention (398-99). Speaking in 1978 at the point when this revolution against the current-traditional paradigm was consolidating the writing process paradigm and the new discipline of rhetoric/composition, Young states:

It is no accident that the shift in attention from composed product to the composing process is occurring at the same time as the reemergence of invention as a rhetorical discipline. Invention requires a process view of rhetoric; and if the composing process is to be taught, rather than left to the student to be learned, arts associated with the various stages of the process are necessary. (401)

Speaking assuredly about the importance of "the skills invention is designed to cultivate" for effective writing, Young voices a key question—how are they to be cultivated?(399). He ends his essay voicing the need for more research, specifically stating, “we lack detailed accounts of pedagogical devices associated with theories of invention” (410). Although coming over thirty years later, my own inquiry into the pedagogical activity of teacher-prompted rhetorical reflection can be seen as answering Young’s call for research into just such a pedagogical device.

Although Young can be seen to be influenced by the stage view of the writing process, Flower and Hayes’ (1981) re-conception of the writing process as recursive, and an increasing view of the entire writing process as an inquiry process (Elbow, Odell, Hillocks Inquiry) has led to the belief that invention does not happen only at the beginning of the writing process, but occurs throughout the activity of writing from start to end. Rhetorical reflection, then, represents a pedagogical activity meant to re-engage writers in inventional thinking. The pedagogical practice of invention and reflection both connect in these areas:

· Invention and reflection both are heuristics of guided inquiry

· Productive invention and reflection are both seen as requiring similar states of ambiguity or a sense of a problem to trigger and guide them

· The prime concern invention and reflection share is an interest in determining and negotiating the writer’s rhetorical stance

Stance is a significant concept because it helps to bridge what Lynette Hunter calls the either/or split she believes rhetoric has suffered from between seeing rhetoric as a “theory of strategy or technique alone” or as a “pursuit of truth or expression of belief” (4). Invention is not just about generating ideas and making meaning; it is about communicating those meanings to someone else within a particular context. As Hunter states, “Stance is a rhetorical term for indicating not what someone believes, … but how he believes. Stance enacts the meeting of the human being with the world” (5). Invention, and by extension rhetorical reflection, are primarily concerned with helping the writer to position themselves and their ideas in order to communicate effectively. Wayne Booth in his influential 1963 article “Rhetorical Stance,” represents rhetorical stance as a balancing of the various elements of the writing situation and claims, “it is this balance, this rhetorical stance, difficult as it is to describe, that is our main goal as teachers of rhetoric” (141). Finding this balance is not limited to any “pre-writing” stage or activities, and rhetorical reflection is one important pedagogical activity meant to help writers find, problem-solve, and pursue their rhetorical stance throughout the writing process.

We see from this brief survey how rhetorical reflection links to pivotal concerns of invention our discipline has had from its inception. However, if the links of rhetorical reflection to the story of invention ended here, my own inquiry would not have adequate relevance for writing instruction today. The answer to Young’s call for research is documented in his 1987 summary of research on invention within the collection Teaching Composition: Twelve Bibliographic Essays. His summary filled thirty-eight pages and significantly was placed first. In the introduction to their 1994 Landmark Essays on Rhetorical Invention in Writing, Young and Yameng Liu declare that developments in theory and research since World War II have “established invention as the central theoretical issue of rhetoric and composition and its study as one of the most fertile and dynamic areas in discourse studies” (xiii). This statement, however, represents the high water mark for invention in recent times.

The emergence of postmodernism and its reconceived notion of the subject (that is, the writer who writes) challenged invention and put it on the defensive (Atwill xvi). John Clifford in his essay “The Subject in Discourse” summarizes the 20^th century critique of the traditional humanist view of the writer that underlay many of the assumptions of invention within the writing process held by many rhetoric/composition revivalists of the 60s and 70s. Clifford summarizes this view and the basis for undercutting this view:

For the traditional humanist, the writer has always been seen as a creative individual, the locus of significance, the originator of meaning, an autonomous being, aware of ends and means, of authorial intentions and motivations. … but rarely is the writer thought of as the site of contradiction, as being written by social or psychological forces that might diminish the clarity of consciousness or the singularity of individual intentions. (39)

The writer is written rather than writing, and agency for determining meaning and intentions is placed outside the individual rather than inside the individual’s consciousness. Clifford summarizes succeeding waves of critique of the autonomous self from structuralism, to psychological criticism, to post-structuralism: “As a result, the independent and private consciousness formerly endowed with plentitude and presence, with a timeless and transcultural essence, becomes in postmodern thought a decentered subject constantly being called on to inhabit overdetermined positions, the implications of which can be only dimly grasped by a consciousness written by multiple, shifting codes” (40-41). Michel Foucault’s statement from The Archeology of Knowledge represents one particularly influential postmodern critique of the “autonomous subject”: “it must now be recognized that it is neither by recourse to a transcendental subject nor by recourse to a psychological subjectivity that the regulation of its enunciations should be defined” (1444-1445). Writing, or discourse, is not created and invented (“regulated”) by the writer; instead the writer and his or her text are determined by discourse and social forces outside the writer. In short, traditional notions of invention heralded by Young and other early rhetoric/composition scholars are impossible from the postmodern position. If a new bibliographic essay on the studies in invention by our field were published today, it would be hard pressed to fill thirty-eight pages as Young did in 1987. Instead, as Atwill notes, interest in invention waned and all but disappeared in the 1990s to the marginalized place it holds today (Rhetorical Invention 2).

The post-postmodern correction to this stripping of the subject’s agency is to return some control to the writer, to acknowledge that in the face of multiple outside influences the writer still shapes and forms their meaning in ways determined (to a degree) by themselves. Helen Foster’s conception of “networked subjectivity” and Anis Bawarshi’s conception of genre’s interaction with the writer present alternative, broader views of the writer who writes and is written.

Figure CVB: Helen Foster’s Networked Subjectivity (Foster 113)

Foster’s aim is to conceptualize a more complex picture of the “relation of the subject to itself, to others, and to the world” believing that this complex perspective still offers significant agency to the writer (and the teacher) who is aware of this positionality. She seeks a point of stasis between traditional notions of the writing process and the radical notions of post-process scholarship with its overdetermined notions of the writer. For her, she finds this point of common concern and assumptions within social/cultural scholarship: “this scholarship effectively moves us off overdetermined notions of the individual and toward theorizing (1) the complex networks with(in) which writers are imbricated by merely being and (2) the complex networks that influence and pressure the act(or) of writing” (Foster 40-41). Figure CVB illustrates her graphical representation of the material and conceptual space of what she refers to as the “writer/writing/network” which she labels as “networked process.” Foster and Bawarshi each present “invention” as a form of negotiation that must be accomplished by the writer as he or she writes, where the writer has a significant role in this negotiated process. Thus, from my perspective we have the reawakening of invention in writing studies, and my own inquiry into rhetorical reflection can be seen as aligning with this new expanded view of the subject and its possibilities for invention.

Closely allied to the reawakening of invention within the field of composition/rhetoric is the emergence of “epistemic rhetoric” and notions that through writing we discover and construct knowledge. Often referred to by influential scholars and teachers like Donald Murry, Peter Elbow, and James Britton as “writing as discovery,” theories of epistemic writing were based on the critique of current-traditional (and modernist) notions of language as a container for thought. Since language is conceived of instead as the substance of thought, our use of language is the way in which we shape and form our thinking. We have already seen this notion expressed in the work of Elliot Eisner who says that through representations of reality we are engaged in constructing that reality for ourselves. Britton presents this view as he summarizes the thinking of Susan Langar: “We give and find shape in the very act of perception, we give and find further shape as we talk, write or otherwise represent our experience” (“Spectator Role” 150). Kenneth Dowst in Eight Approaches to Teaching Composition summarizes what he calls “The Epistemic Approach.” In this description, he voices these same assumptions about the relation of language and thought: “The way we use language, then, seems not only to reflect but in part to determine what we know, what we can do, and in a sense who we are. … our manipulation of language shapes our conceptions of the world and of our selves” (69). This epistemic quality of language use underlay representations of the entire writing process as a process of discovery and, as Ann Berthoff called it, the “making of meaning”: “Composing … is a means of discovering what we mean to say, as well as being the saying of it” (Berthoff 20). This perspective on the power of writing was significantly confirmed by Judith Langer and Arthur Applebee’s 1987 study How Writing Shapes Thinking and would underlie the enormous growth of Writing Across the Disciplines (WAC) programs in American colleges and universities. The concept of “write to learn” is grounded in these assumptions about language and in particular the nature of writing as a means for this discovery and construction of meaning and understanding. Dowst presents a description of the unique epistemic qualities of the act of writing:

While one in effect composes his or her world by engaging in any sort of language-using, it is by means of writing that one stands to learn the most, for writing is the form of language-using that is slowest, most deliberate, most accessible, most conveniently manipulable, and most permanent. While a person’s short-term memory can hold at any time only six or seven “bits” of information, a written paragraph can hold thousands. It can fix them while a writer experiments in connecting bits in various ways, in replacing some with others, in supplementing them with others, in rearranging them, in abstracting and generalizing from them. (69)

Rather than being the means by which we clothe already-formulated thoughts, writing as an epistemic tool serves as the means for shaping, constructing, and deepening thinking. It is this tradition within our discipline of epistemic rhetoric that I want to connect with my own inquiry into rhetorical reflection. Reflection as a form of thinking about thinking and action happens in many forms either in non-discursive ways (simply in our head), by talking, or by writing. My focus is upon written reflection, and we can see from this brief summary of epistemic rhetoric’s place within our discipline how my own inquiry fits within the same assumptions about the power of writing to form and shape our thinking that have informed our field for many years.

While rhetorical reflection shares in many of the positive assumptions about the value of invention and epistemic theories of writing, it also shares the same questions and ambiguities about these activities. Young in his 1978 article voices the lack of certainty of how to promote the skills of invention and the doubt surrounding invention’s effectiveness, and he devotes special attention to research on competing theories of invention. Interestingly, his questions about determining the adequacy of these theories are the same that apply to current views on reflection:

1. Does it [the theory of invention] do what it claims to do? That is, does it provide an adequate account of the psychological processes it purports to explain? And does it increase our ability to carry out these processes more efficiently or effectively?

and …

2. Does the theory provide a more adequate account of the processes and more adequate means for carrying them out than any of the alternatives. (405)

Here we have in a more sophisticated form the “open question” of reflection. Implicit within the use of teacher-prompted activities to promote reflective thinking are “theories of reflection” which contain claims and assumptions about what happens when students reflect and what results will happen (or ought to happen) because of the reflection. Indeed, we can see by a re-examination of the two research questions of this dissertation how much this inquiry aligns with that advocated by Young:

What is the nature of Rhetorical Reflection within the activity of writing, and how does it work in relation to the learning and practice of freshman writers?

Can we generate a grounded theory that offers an understanding of rhetorical reflection and how it works that is useful for teachers of writing?

This research project seeks what Young calls an “adequate account” of rhetorical reflection.

It seeks to answer whether our theorizing about reflection fits with an understanding of reflection generated from grounded theory. It hopes to generate a theory of rhetorical reflection that may offer a theory that better matches students’ actual practice of reflection and proves useful in productive ways for teachers?

What the proceeding literature review will do is describe our field’s development of a theory of reflection, with special attention directed towards in-task reflection. We will see our field’s various attempts to answer the question of the adequacy and effectiveness of this theory. However, as Kimberly Emmons points out, our field has closely examined or questioned how reflection works for writers, “Our attention as theorists has been focused on promoting the habit of reflection in our students rather than on questioning its mechanisms” (“The Legacy of Process: Self-Reflection”). What this review will reveal is how we have built our theory of reflection by importing theories uncritically and crudely into our own teaching practice. We have predominantly based our practice upon theories built from other theories or from classroom experience. The nature of our theory building and resulting practice has resulted in a gap in our ability to account sufficiently for reflection and the persistence of the open question regarding reflection.

Scattered

2010-01-08T11:06:00.001-06:00

I've had a full morning of working on phase II of my lit review, and I feel very scattered at the moment. For fun, let me try a few metaphors of how I feel and where I am.

I feel as if I am playing 52 card pick up. The deck has been cast in the air and the cards are strewn all over the place. I am picking up card by card trying to put them into some order.

I am working on putting together a puzzle. There are a zillion pieces all over the table. I have bunches of pieces together that form some coherent pictures, but there are still lots of scattered pieces. I also find pieces that might fit in one place or another or actually do fit in multiple places. It is a three dimensional puzzle.

I also feel as if I am going through old boxes in the attic to see what to throw away. I am going through old articles, notebooks, books, and my notes and it is slow tedious work as I am drawn in to pulling out and examining each treasure in the boxes from the attic.

What is another metaphor for my current state?

I also feel something like I am working on a project with bricks or stones. Let's say I'm building a wall. The bricks are all in a pile in the front drive, but my wall is in the back. As I put together my wall, I have to carry these bricks. Also, as I make the wall I have to handle the bricks. But they are heavy and I can only carry a few bricks at a time. The information is so much that can't retain it all in my mind at the same time. I can't carry the pile all at once to the wall. So I am devising ways to carefully carry bricks, sort and categorize them and place them in certain places I can come back to. I have to set up this wide array of bricks so that I can select and place the brick where I want it to go. But this seems to be my typical way of writing. However, this time I am also working with multiple past sets of categorizes sources, and I am struggling with how to deal with those.

I feel also something like I do as I build a sandcastle via the drip method. I'm cupping my hand into a divit half full of water and scooping out a hand full of wet sand and letting it drip to form a rampart or a tower. Pour, dripdrip, drip, ... drip, higher higher building little by little drip by drip slowly drip by drip but still building and building.

Ok. Enough for now. I have more work to do.

Still prepping for stage 2 of Lit Review

2010-01-06T09:49:00.000-06:00

I am still pulling things together for stage two of my literature review focusing on Rhet/Comp-Writing and reflection. As seems typical, it is taking longer than I had thought. I wish I was able to sit down and just have this stuff pour out of my head. It doesn't. As I have watched myself write this lit review, I see a consistent pattern to my writing process. I seem to need to gather all the various pieces of my topic together, and then I sort and order them according to the design/organization I create. Then I can write. I used the analogy of a box of legos to my students. A writer needs to have that ready material from which to construct their written work. Thus, I have been gathering my legos together.

The first stage was to organize my office and put things back in their place after stage 1 of the lit review. I had Schon and King/Kitchener stuff all over the place. I also had scattered articles that I had never really reviewed and put together, so I've been looking at these. The big winner from this batch of stuff is an article from 2003 in Composition Studies by Emmons critiquing reflection, particularly portfolio reflections. I know I will have a number of good reference points to bounce from her article. I also went through all my research on reflection and summarized points for each. I need to do this quick review for other articles and books on reflection and comp. I also re-read portions of Yancey's Reflection in the Writing Classroom. At this point, I am still pulling together all my lego pieces (so to speak). My next step is to sort and order and design my approach to this lit review section.

I know that I will generally follow this plan:

Intro--setting course of section II
Reflection and Rhet/Comp (central focus around Yancey)
Reflection and Cognitive views of writing (centrally focusing around Flower-Hayes and Beireter-Scarmadalia and others)
Reflection and Student-Self-evaluations and Revision (I'm going to lump these together)

I have one outlier area of scholarship which I am not sure how I will integrate yet. This is reflection as reflective practice. Typically, this scholarship is either directed toward the education/training of teachers or for professionals (particularly nurses). I perhaps could have had this material in my earlier section on Reflection and Practice, but I held it out because typically this scholarship revolves around the use of writing in this educational process of practitioners. It is also a bit of an outlier because it tends to be post-taskish. Lots use ongoing journals, so this can be considered as in-task, but it is different than the kind of reflection I am talking about. That is why I am considering keeping this section short and generally referential in nature. We shall see.

I was glancing through the new Norton Essays on Composition Studies and found Richard Young's 1978 call for more research into invention. This essay has given me a solid angle for opening this second section because I will use the article to position my study within larger concerns of rhet/comp (namely the role and place of invention in the writing process), and I can use it to highlight two key aspects I will be stressing: 1) reflection as in-task rather than post-task; that is, time or the kairotic elements of invention matters; 2) the open question of whether this kind of teacher-prompted activity is worth it (the "open question" of reflection) because this same question is asked of invention exercises. My goal is to tie my work into a tradition of scholarship on the writing process and on invention and its place and role within the writing process. I also really like Young's discussion of theory and criteria for adequacy and the nature of theory that will be useful. I think I can use this perhaps as a gauge or measuring stick as I discuss the theories and discussions on reflection of the scholarship I will review. Of course, I will attempt to show that these theories may be wanting in certain aspects. Thus we will be wanting a more adequate theory.

I have just about everything ready for the semester, so I should have Thurs. Friday, Sat., Sun, and Monday to get a good launch on this second section. Today is department stuff--ugg. First to gather all my legos. Next, sort and organize. Then write.

Future Post: I plan to discuss in a future post what function this long version of my lit review is serving and how I anticipate I will craft my actual lit review from this extended version.

Launching the next phase--Lit Review Part II

2009-12-26T08:17:00.000-06:00

I'm ramping up to dig into the second half of my lit review. I certainly hope it doesn't take as long as part I. I have this feeling that I need to charge through this draft because it is a draft. Also, I need to move more quickly because what will end up going into my actual dissertation will be considerably different and shorter. The style of writing will be different. Right now I am writing in depth summaries and considerations of key points. That's OK. But it isn't the synthetic narrative of the dissertation. If my draft one ends up at 50K or 70K words, my actual lit review in the diss will end up being 12.5 K (50 pages double-spaced). Even if I stretch it to 100 pages, the lit review would be only 25K. I will have a lot of conversion to do; however, I am finding this detailed review of the research and literature enormously helpful in expanding my understanding.

As I dive into this next phase, I am pulling together my sources. It is nice to be focusing on writing! I've started by looking at my summaries of research on rhetorical reflection. Now it the time I can build on previous work--thank goodness. I also have a notebook (actually notebooks) with all the various articles. I need to find my close summary notes on Yancey's book. They are in my box somewhere.

I have a few thoughts right now as I look at the lit on reflection research. First, there is a lot of good material. Many studies are weak in rigor, and I've thought about developing some kind of star system for rating research. I have a number of one star studies, but I have what I have.

Some impressions--
A number of studies point to ability and proficiency with reflection leads to improvement of some kind or correlates with superior ability. Sumsion has probably the most interesting things to say because she is critical of reflection. Her study doubts reflection can be quantitatively measured. It isn't suited for that kind of evaluation. She also noticed that students can be reflective and yet still not academically able. I have certainly seen that with a noticeable number of students. They can write a beautiful reflection in their final portfolio reflection, but their actual writing performance does not match the sophistication of their reflective awareness.

I see lots of influence from Flavell and his notion of metacognition. I struggle in my own mind to pin down a definition of metacognition, or rather I struggle matching exact forms or expressions of thinking with what is "metacognitive." How do I distinguish these forms of thinking we might label as "metacognitive" from those we should label "reflective?" Should I distinguish them, or can I lump them together? Flavell asserted that metacognition could be learned, that it would improve based upon training. Some research has tried to validate that assertion, and there is a group of findings that characterize reflection in the same way--that reflection is a learned behavior/skill. I might mention that this school of thinking counters the findings of King and Kitchener who believe reflective thinking is developmental.

I also see two different views of reflection. One view is based from Dewey and it presents reflective thinking in qualified terms. Reflection is triggered from a problem, exists within an ill-structured situation, and is inquiry based upon seeking a solution to the problem. David Boud offers another school of thinking about reflection that has a broader definition. In this sense, reflection is a form of thoughtful processing of experience with the goal of gaining better understanding that it is assumed leads to improved practice. Boud has a general practice orientation. I don't think these definitions or perspectives need to be exclusive of each other. Boud's allows for what McAlpine saw which is that practitioners engaged in reflection-in-action didn't always reflect around a problem, but they could also trigger significant reflection and resulting action around possibilities.

So much for the moment. I am presently gaining a perspective on the terrain of all this literature and scholarship. I'm gathering all my lego pieces. Once I have them together, I will chart out my game plan for writing and begin.

Persuasive Developments: Reflective Judgment and College Students' Written Argumentation

2009-12-23T07:43:00.001-06:00

2003 Dissertation by Amy Overbay--available

Excerpts from Conclusions Section

"However, the majority of the essays written by both groups of participants used onesided
positions, and did not examine or respond to objections in a sustained way. In most
cases, participants used evidence that was not examined critically, and offered unqualified
claims. Participants in both groups appeared reluctant to concede contested points, and in the
majority of their essays failed to address the fundamental conflict underlying the rhetorical
problem. These characteristics have been identified in other studies of students’ persuasive
writing (Crammond, 1998; Hays, 1988; Hillocks, 1995)" (202).

"The results of this study provide substantiation for Davidson et al.’s (1990) prediction
that reflective judgment may play an important role in how some students construct solutions
to the dilemmas they face when writing arguments. Given these findings, assuming that all
freshmen come to the first day of classes equipped with the necessary repertoire of cognitive
skills for dealing with ill-structured problems in writing may problematize their ability to
produce the kinds of arguments we want them to write" (207)

"The instructor in this study voiced a widely-held belief that students’ difficulties with written arguments pertained to their lack of preparation for college writing, or to their lack of intelligence. The possibility that some writing behaviors may be related to the developmental nature of students’ beliefs about knowing and justifying provides an important alternative explanation for instructors searching for ways to clarify for students what they expect from them" (208).

*************************************************

Discussion and Implications of Overbay's Study

I have taught Freshman Composition II, the class that focuses most explicitely on academic argumentation, for almost twenty years, and I have from the start noticed the difficulty freshmen have with what I term the "critical essay." Students that might do well in Freshman Comp I where the writing is more expressive in nature fall flat on their face when confronted with this task of forming and supporting an argument. From the start, I have noticed the high failure rate (if I could call it that) on the first essay which typically has been to form an argument supporting an interpretation of a work of literature, so I have my students rewrite the first paper. Overbay states that most instructors believe that lack of familiarity with academic conventions or a students intelligence are the prime causes for this difficulty in writing. However, her research confirming the presence of the expected stages of development within freshmen writer's arguments indicates that cognitive development issues may be more important. Students are not ready for the kind of reflective thinking we set as our learning objectives for this kind of writing assignment. It is like we are asking them to jump and touch a ten foot high basketball rim, and they are only able to jump and touch a six foot rim.

Two things about these findings jump out at me:
1. Deterministic view
If we carry these findings too far, we fall into what we might call a materialistic view of human behavior (in this case the learning and performing behavior of freshman writers). The hard-wired nature of the mind's development shapes, then, what these individuals are able to think and do in terms of their writing tasks. For those of us who ascribe to the outside influence of society and language upon our thinking and consciousness, this sort of fundamental determinism below this level of social influence is disturbing and hard to swallow.

2. Modifications
Maybe we can see the teaching practices that have been labeled "current traditional" in a new light based upon these findings. In many ways, the formalist impulses and of current traditional pedagogy might be seen as modifications made by generations of teachers to create writing tasks that are more developmentally appropriate for students at this developmental level. Such formalist tasks tend to make writing into a "well-structured" problem; whereas, the new rhetorical pedagogy that emerged since the 1960s emphasized the rhetorical, and thus "ill-structured" aspects of the writing task. Perhaps freshmen writers are not yet ready for the full blast of rhetoric's ill-structured nature? We might ask why after all these years of critiquing writing forms such as the five-paragraph essay do they persist. The work of King and Kitchener may offer an interesting explanation in this sort of writing's developmental appropriateness.

In my own thinking about reflection, I have come up with a number of different metaphors to explain some of my assumptions about its nature and role in learning and writing. My favorite is the Superman telephone booth. Clark Kent sees a crisis or problem, jumps into a near by phone booth still clothed in his newspaperman suit, and then after moments emerges as Superman in his superman suit. Reflection is like that phone booth--students enter it and become transformed. The act of reflection is some kind of catalyst for change or development in thinking (and by extension action). It is nice to leave the booth as a black box where unknown and unidentified things happen, but many thinkers on reflection have anatomized the thinking that goes on within the reflection telephone booth. This reflective thinking is described as a method or even as a sort of formula or perhaps you could call it a dance. We can map this thinking and it exists as a static model representing a form of mental activity.

The assumption has been that if we could only engage students in this type of thinking (because it is out there as a method or model to perform)--if we could only shove them in the Superman telephone booth--good things would happen. The magic powers of reflection would create change and transformation and all sort of good things.

King and Kitchener's work, as well as Overbay's, tells us that we might shove students in the telephone booth, but they are not able or ready to engage in the kind of reflective thinking we assume they will do. No wonder we are disappointed in the kinds of reflections our students do. No wonder we don't see the results of this kind of reflection that we might expect. No wonder suddenly all our students don't have superman caps and are flying through the sky after we ask them to reflect.

My sense is that the take away from asking students to engage in reflection is more than what can be summarized in the capacity of their epistemic cognition. As Boud as discussed, the outputs from reflection are multiple and varied. However, I believe this research is significant and can help me understand better what expectation I might have for my students' reflections (as well as their abilities as thinkers and writers in my class)

2009 Dissertation Progress Report

2009-12-20T12:37:00.003-06:00

1/5-1/9 Qualifying Exam taken

1/20 News of Passing on Qualifying Exam

2/20 Dissertation Proposal Submitted (accepted)

3/13 Paper presentation 2009 CCCC in San Francisco “Researching Rhetorical Reflection” –involved updated review of research

March-May Review and Preparations for Engaging in Grounded Theory Research
(see blog for posts)-- http://thespeculum.blogspot.com/

5/15 Slice 1 of data analysis completed

5/31 Slice 2 of data analysis completed

6/13 Slice 3 of data analysis completed

6/15 – 8/4 Work on Lit Review

8/5-8/15 Slice 4 data analysis Phase I

8/15-10/7 Work on Lit Review

10/7-11/9 Slice 4 data analysis Phase II (completed)
--completion of Open Coding and identification of categories and properties near complete

11/10- Return to Work on Lit Review

*************************************************

Additional professionally related tasks:

Spring 2009—acted as peer reviewer for two articles submitted for publication to Voices in the Middle

Spring 2009—revised and resubmitted Writing Program Profile accepted by Composition Forum twice. Article finally accepted and published in the June issue.

June 2009—published “The Activist WPA in Action: A Profile of the First-Year Writing

Program at Eastern Michigan University.” Composition Forum 20, Summer 2009.

July 2009—led 1-week Open Institute on College Readiness for the San Antonio Writing Project (19 high school teachers attended)

Summer 2009—textbook chapter accepted and draft written for Writing Spaces: Readings on Writing (Edited by Charlie Lowe): “What is Writing? What is ‘Academic’ Writing?” Draft available
Dec. 2009--peer reviewed article submission for CCC

******************************

Details on Lit Review and Research Work

Literature Review progress

As of 12/21, I will have completed my review of scholars and research on rhetorical reflection OUTSIDE of Composition/Rhetoric. These include the work predominantly of Dewey, Moon, Mezirow, Boud, Schon, and King and Kitchener. The draft of this section of my literature review is approximately 35 thousand words.

Beginning promptly on 12/22, I will begin my review of the scholarship and research on rhetorical reflection within the field of composition/rhetoric or writing studies broadly speaking. The general areas I will cover are reflection and composition, cognitive views of the writing process, student self-evaluation/assessments, and revision.

Projected completion date for Lit Review Draft #1: March 15^th

Research Work progress

For now, I plan to focus on the lit review. If I bog down earlier, I may take a break by focusing on Slice 5 analysis, but in all likelihood this analysis will begin in Mid-March. This last slice of open coding will a “draft cycle” view for eight to twelve “cycles” containing these items: draft #1, peer responses on draft #1, Writing Review of draft #1, draft #2 (or it could be between draft two and three).

***********************
Projected Timeline of Work

Goal: To have my lit review and open coding completed by May Seminar. Focus on May Seminar for Axial Coding and revision plans for Lit Review. It would be nice to have the data analysis completed earlier, though. The projected timeline is deliberately conservative.

Late Spring-Early Summer: Complete research data analysis (Axial/Focused)

Summer: Submit draft chapters of Dissertation

Fall: Drafting and revision of chapters

Late Fall 2010-Early Spring 2011 Dissertation Defense

More on slice 4

2009-11-04T10:13:00.003-06:00

Once again, it is slow slogging with my data analysis. Two hours here, one hours there. Chip. Chip. Chip. Slog. Slog. Slog. I believe, however, that my categories are coming together as well as the various dynamics of relationship between them. Wow! I can't believe it is happening. I think I pretty much have categories for describing everything that is happening in these writer's reviews. This emergence of categories has been happening from the beginning, but I have had so many different names for things and so many different "things" going on that I was not able to spot the groupings of these things. I don't like the phrasing here "things" but it is ok for now. I'm struggling now with how so many of these categories have valences or variances. For instance, one category is goals or setting goals. This could be writing goals or revision goals: one is abstract and the other is specific to the task. Are these two separate categories or one category with two valences? This variance among categories also gets compounded with the categories are in relationship with each other. For instance, I have a category named "considering/evaluating what is." The "considering/evaluating" is a two-fold variable and "is" is a much larger variable, so it could be
considering writing goals
considering revision goals
evaluating writing goals
evaluating revision goals

In a big picture, this list describes two larger categories in dynamic with each other, but am I describing the variance within these categories correctly? I already am feeling the complicated way in which these categories related to each other, but then that is the goal of Axial Coding. Perhaps it is good that I am beginning to move into Axial land as my categories begin to solidify.

I'm wondering now whether Nvivo will become a good tool to use, and then whether I can get it to represent digitally the complicated dynamics within this phenomena so that I can code easily. That will come I think as I do one more slice of data--slice 5.

What will slice 5 be?
I think slice 5 needs to be "draft cycle" views--that is, everything surrounding a single draft and then what results in the next draft. Question: Do I include the previous writer's review or not? I don't know.
So if I were focused on draft 2 in an essay cycle:
(Writer's review 1.1?)
Draft 1.2
Peer response 1.2
Writer's review 1.2
Draft 1.3 (look at the changes and connect them back to draft 1.2 and reflective processing)

Although it may be tempting to include the 1.1 Writer's Review, I think it will be cleaner to focus on the draft cycle materials without it. I will get to see just what role the writer's review plays in the dynamic of draft to draft. How many to I sample? 4-6 1301 and 4-6 1302?

How do I code these? I think I should attempt to "code" them with my categories and see what sorts of tensions and problems I experience with the codes. What don't these categories capture? What other categories do I need? Hmm... We'll see.

I still have a bit of a ways to go with slice 4--I NEED to finish this weekend. We shall see what my continued analysis shows and what I figure out from my final slice 4 memo.

Slog slog

Processing Slice 4

2009-10-21T09:33:00.006-06:00

Slice 4 of my data analysis has taken complete sets of drafting-texts for three essay cycles. This involves each draft, DI critique, peer response, and Writer's Review for every draft a student writes in a semester. It is a lot of data. The goal is to see these Writer's Reviews in context--that is, to try to take into account (as much as is possible with these artifacts) the situational conditions and influences affecting the writer as they work on his or her draft. To be sure, the view I have from this data is limited, but it is ok. I must remember and appreciate that all the data I have is a textual representation of thinking. Other verbal or non-discursive factors are not visible, and so I must view an appreciate this data for what it is as written representations of the writer's thoughts and feelings and as such they are constructions. They are interesting because they are "textual makings" like the writer's essay. Grounded Theory as a form of ethnography is based upon close observation of phenomenon. This close observation depends to a high degree upon the researcher's sensitivity and understanding of the phenomena and context in which the phenomena exists. For me, that is what I am after here with this slice. Get the full context (as much as I can).

This slice gives me the fullest picture of Writer's Reviews in context. The image above provides the full picture of the context for Writer's Reviews and rhetorical reflection.

So what am I seeing in Slice 4?
It is extremely tedious and time consuming to chart out all the details of what is happening in a draft. I am going through one student's work in 1302, and have finished with one essay cycle. I see so many factors involved that it is hard to nail them all down. Here is a semi-list:
--the writing task
--the student's understanding of the writing task
--the nebulous concept of "assignment success" and its rough relationship (open to interpretation) with "writing success"
--what the writer thinks/wants
--outside critique from DI/peers (what the teacher/peer thinks/wants)
--available content/knowledge from which to write
--the writer's proficiency and skill with "tools"

I want to write about this last item. In this particular case, it is apparent that the writer was limited in his researching skills. I every WR and almost in every peer response the need for more support and evidence is mentioned, yet the writer hardly brings in any additional research. IF he had found support for his original position to keep bases open, he might have written an essay supporting that position. But because he didn't have the evidence for one position and did for the other, he chose argue against his original (and we might say true) position. What caused him to change? Transformation, right? I don't see this transformation happening inside the WRs--that's for sure. His 1.3 WR before his last draft states in the last line that he will argue for keeping the bases open, but his actual draft 1.4 is opposed to keeping the bases open. Why? In his 1.4 WR he says that he opposed because he had more convincing data and evidence.

What happened? The goal/task in his mind was more a matter of "assignment success" which meant a convincing argument of a certain length. When he rattled around in his lego box of content and information on the subject, he didn't have enough pieces to fit together something that would reach assignment success, but he did have some good pieces to make an argument opposed to the bases. Hence, he too the expedient path toward assignment success and the grade. After all, the grade is waht matters.

What role did Writer's Reviews play in this path toward his final draft? What role did WRs play in the relationship between thinking and action? For this writer in particular, I am conscious that these WRs are constructions themselves. You can see him consciously addressing the questions in the prompt and writing what he things he needs to write to "show off" his "good-studentness" to the teacher. He also takes a very deferential tone toward the process--looking for errors and jumping to say he will fix them and not do them (ever) again. You can see him in places reaching for things to write, particularly as far as grammar goes. I can' t say he is the best subject.

What is important, however, is to see the elements at play. I hate to say that I am seeing Schon's four constants that affect reflection-in-action and eventual practice:

media/tools to engage in task/reflection
appreciative systems
cognitive framework, schema, terministic screen
understanding of role, role playing

Is this a warning? Am I beginning to bring outside theory into my interpretations? If so, I think I need to keep grounding those ideas in the concrete appearances in my data.

OK. Enough for now. More later on slice 4 as I look at this kids second essay cycle.

Processing the Annual Review—2009

2009-05-18T09:58:00.001-06:00

I want to write out some notes from my talk with my committee. Overall, my impression is that the actual researching (the doing of grounded theory) may be longer and harder than I envision. I got a better idea about the flow of doing the chapters, so I’ll summarize it below as a list:
• Come back to chapter 1 AFTER the research is complete
• Don’t wait until after research is complete to do the Lit Review section (this was something I had planned to wait to do)
• Chapter 3 may take longer than I anticipate because I may change things that I am doing
• Chapters 4 and 5 (findings and implications) will come more quickly after research is complete

We talked a fair amount about timeline and the flow of work. First drafts will flow through Rich until they are acceptable to go out to the whole committee. I expressed the desire to try to get an entire draft completed first and then work on revision. Now that I look at it, it seems to me that this goal may be wrong-headed. First, it puts a massive text in Rich’s lap, and second, moving chapter by chapter may be more realistic. Anyway, I have my first goal of getting a draft of the lit review done soon. I had the impression that the lit review is good for the entire committee. The most important thing about the timeline is that the dissertation needs to be all done at least one month before the defense (and preferably sooner than that). That means I should shoot for a January 1 completion data. Oh, my! I hope I have a productive summer.

We talked for quite a while about my research methodology. A big topic was the hybrid nature of my research where it is grounded in the traditional sense of analyzing slices of data, by hybrid in being able to go back to the massive database. One point that Rich brought up that I thought was interesting is about what a failed study would reveal. By failed he meant that what would be revealed if the findings from my by necessity narrow look at the database (I will actually be sampling a very small portion of what is available) and my findings were shown to be wrong or not to carry out? So much of our research in Composition is based upon making conclusions from small samples, but this result would indicate that this practice is perilous. We shall see. The big question is whether I will be able to take an emerged core category and query for that throughout the entire database. Right now, Fred says he doesn’t know how to query the text inside the database. The labor involved in taking out the separate texts and putting them into Atlas or Nvivo would be immense! Hmm… . I wonder about Nvivo. I believe it has a SQL database on the back end, so I wonder if I could import the entire database into Nvivo? Now that would make NVivo worth using. I can hardly imagine that it can do this large scale importing, but I’ll check it out.

Rich and I have talked about how the eventual methodology I will use will be noteworthy and worth an article when I’m all done. I have to admit that I don’t see it yet. I think it has to do with the back and forth of both sampling the database and then wide-scale querying of results inside the database. So it is how this database is used for research that is significant. That is what I am seeing at this point.

All and all I am beginning to see the enormity of the work to come like a large mountain to climb. I have to remember that mountains are climbed one step at a time. I think it helps to have a clear path, and though I feel pretty clear about my path, I need to clarify it more. And start walking!

Of first codings

2009-05-15T13:43:00.001-06:00

I'm near the end of my first round of coding my first slice of data. I've been engaged in what is called micro-analysis, a line-by-line (even word by word) look at these textual artifacts. In this blog post, I want to write about my experience doing this micro-analysis (and not get into what I am seeing so far).

My initial task has been to underline sections of text and ask "What is going on here?" I'm looking at objects, events, acts, or happenings in the text. I've struggled mightily with the concept of categories—what is a category? That is what I am supposed to look for. Ian Dey specifically distinguishes them from names or labels. Gratefully, Strauss and Corbin have a helpful section on Open Coding. I looked at what I was doing, and I would say predominantly I was labeling what I saw. I had a lot of continuous tense verbs—showing evidence, affirming success, looking at draft, fitting in bounds. I see now that I was doing a lot of identifying and naming of what is happening for the students or happening in what they are doing.

The difficulty I have found is finding the right words for the labels. Often there are subtle shades of difference. What's the difference, for instance, between "showing evidence" and "offering specifics?" I'm using different language to describe the same essential thing. I saw a lot of where students would point to some fault or problem in either their draft of how they understood the assignment. Is it "admitting a fault" or "not fitting in bounds" or is there a better language to capture this form of self-assessment. But, as this last sentence illustrates, I have begun to categorize (I guess that is what I am doing) what is going on. I have grouped both pointing to faults or errors and point to successes as a form of self-assessment. Or should I call it "assessing the performance?" The problem of finding the right language to describe and label what I am seeing is difficult. It all seems a muddle, and it gets more muddled if I use different language. I've tried a few times to put aside the data and try to code the next set of artifacts with fresh eyes to see if I use different language. More muddle.

Let me describe two other things I have done as I did this first-level of micro-analysis. With most all the artifacts, I wrote a short note describing in a larger sense what was going on in this writer's review and what I thought of it. I also tried something Strauss and Corbin suggested, and that is to dig deeply into key words. For instance, I took the words "I believe" and "I realized" and wrote a string of synonyms beneath them trying to open up what the student may be really meaning when they say those words. This was helpful in places. I also noted what I considered "in vivo" names for what is going on. "Fit the assignment" is one example of what I marked as an in vivo term, though I have not decided to use it as a code yet.

Once I had coded all the artifacts, I took another blank sheet of paper and tried to determine classes of labels or what is going on. I was then able to fit a number of other labels within these classes. "Assessing the performance" became one where I could fit both self-assessment and peer assessment under that larger term. But things seem to be nested in loose ways, and how do I know when a sub-category should be its own category. For instance, I used the term "processing a problem" as a category which I had also put as a sub-category under "assessing performance." Both involved self and peer assessment. So where does this self and peer assessment go?

I'm used to from my literary analysis background to doing close reading, and I find myself slipping into this mode. I am not sure how to describe it, but at a certain point trying to process the muddle I feel like I have abandoned the identifying of categories, properties and dimensions.

I know that "constant comparative analysis" is a cornerstone of grounded theory, so I have attempted to do some comparing as I have reprocessed my initial micro-analysis. After I had spent some time just pulling together a comprehensive list of labels and groupings of labels (categories?), I decided to zero in on one common move I saw students doing and that was what appeared to be an end point generally described as "what I see now" or "what I realize" or "what I now know or know to do." Or even what I see to do next.

In writing a short memo about one of my artifacts, I saw that the student was telling a story, a narrative of sorts, of getting to this end point of what I labeled "knowing what to do." I'm not completely happy with the language of this term, but it works for now. Then I looked for this move or story in the different artifacts, finding it in pretty much each one. I diagrammed this narrative as a kind of flow chart. It seemed that there were different paths students took to get to this point of "knowing what to do." The diagram is messy at this point with some redundancies and I will next need to clean up this flow chart. What I am not sure of right now is whether I am on track by creating this diagram (is it an emerging theory) or am I going off-base. Drawing the chart along with examining the data made me see that this end point is really a middle point in some cases. Not only is there a sequence leading to this "knowing what to do" but there is a forward looking projected action in many cases, and these "what I will change" or do next are not all the same.

The goal of initial micro-analysis and open coding is to begin to identify categories and develop some emerging thoughts on theory (or what is going on here). I believe I have nearly accomplished this task with what I have done, but I'm uncertain of what to do next. How do I approach my next slice of data? I know that I need first to do some memoing to process my analysis so far to see where to go next. For me, especially, this reflective writing is very useful. I think I will do another round of micro-analysis on a set of writer's reviews done by students further along in their freshman comp sequence (1302 students) and see if similar patterns are evident or others are there.

I'm thinking right now that muddle is not all bad. I need to embrace the muddle and keep "muddling forward" and not get too stuck in figuring everything out at this point.

My Preconceptions

2009-04-23T09:47:00.004-06:00

I'm going to take a stab at putting down my theoretical assumptions and beliefs BEFORE I begin the analysis of my data. Although Grounded Theory seems to have the requirement that the researcher NOT come to the data with any sort of preconceived theory, I think this requirement gets misinterpreted. First, it is impossible not to have preconceived notions. We all look at the world through our own terministic screens. Dey stresses that the belief in atheoretical observation is a myth. The importance is to be open to data and be aware of the theoretical biases that you already possess. So here it goes.

I thought I would start with some assumptions I expressed about reflection in 2004 in a paper I wrote that summer at the Central Texas Writing Project:

My Assumptions about Reflection

1) Writing reflectively is a learned skill.
2) Reflection helps students formulate and gain ownership of their own knowledge
3) Reflection plays a mediating role for learning from experience
4) Reflection plays a mediating role for learning from experience.
5) Deep reflection becomes "reflexive" (or transformational)
6) Reflection helps students formulate goals and solve problems as they compose.

Surprisingly, I still hold these assumptions to be true. Underneath all of this is a certain agency that I believe this act of reflection possesses. I have thought of various comparisons to describe this agency characteristic I believe reflection has: Superman's telephone booth,and a catalyst for a chemical reaction are the chief two. It just hit me that I didn't include something that indicates a slower growth process such as an oven to bake. Reflection is not an oven; it is something that is more immediate, or at least in its local effects. Implicit in all of this also is the notion of positive change. The most idealistic change or reaction is Mezirow's notions of transformational learning which Qualley picks up on and calls "reflexive." The contemplation, examination, and critique of one's assumptions for thought, belief, or action is said to create almost magically a significant change. This is the home run of reflection.

I also believe more modest, but still significant, things can happen through the "mindfulness" reflection promotes in students. Because the prompt asks students to consider and be more aware of certain things, those items may become more defined or real to the student.

Underneath all of these assumptions also is what we might consider a belief in the magical nature of language. A lot of reflective activities done in the 80s stressed the value of verbal reflection (Boud). Yet, I am focusing on written reflections. These two kinds of reflection seem to share the idea that students putting their thoughts and feelings into words (into language) gain something from that activity. Since our thoughts and perceptions of the world are formed to a large degree within the framework of language, using language is significant for developing this thought. I prefer written reflection because the student has more time to consider what they are writing, and then they have this document to look back on.

What other assumptions do I have?
I also have a more specific notion of this generative power of reflection for Composition that I believe links directly with "invention." For writer's I believe that the most significant concern of the writer's is the negotiation of their "rhetorical stance." That is, reflection helps students position themselves (their text and their thinking) in terms of the writing situation. Reflection provides the space to be "mindful" of the writing situation and all the unique factors that come into play. It is also the place where phronesis can be enacted--that is the flexible application of general rules to specific contexts or ill-structured situations. Reflection, then, becomes the pedagogical activity that reactivates the concerns of invention.

So I bring to my examination of writing and essays a whole lot of baggage about writing process, invention and pre-writing strategies, concepts of the writing situation, and what constitutes writing growth. I firmly believe in the importance of drafting and revision as a means for working on a piece of writing--it isn't a one shot deal. This notion of the "writing feedback loop" and drafting cycle is paired with the developmental nature of learning and knowledge (i.e. Kolb's experiential learning cycle). All of these assumptions are important to me.

I also have a few assumptions regarding causes of poor reflection or a lack of reflection. These predominantly revolve around four things: learning styles, developmental factors, knowledge, and conceptual frameworks of the task. I don't know, but it could be that some people are just not hardwired to think and learn in reflective ways. Being a reflective person myself, I can hardly imagine this kind of person (but we do have George Bush as an example). King and Kitchener as well as other intellectual development models assert that reflective thinking is a higher order level of thinking that comes with more maturity and development. I don't buy this idea that younger kids can't be reflective about what they do, but it is a significant idea and one I am unsure of. Some research also showed that how well students reflected depended to a great degree both on their knowledge (how can they be mindful of something they aren't even aware of or think in ways if they don't have the knowledge to think that way) and their conception or mental schema of the task (if they see the task as being about XYZ when it really is about ABC, then of course they will fail or flail).

For now, these are the key preconceptions I can think of. For me, these thoughts seem so natural and self-evident; thus, it is so important for me to get them down and in the open so I am aware of them. They, of course, are not natural at all.

Grounding Grounded Theory

2009-04-19T05:52:00.003-06:00

I finally have finished Ian Dey's Grounding Grounded Theory, and I know that for the next few weeks (and perhaps the rest of my life) I will be processing this text. However, I want to take a big picture appraisal of his text.

He ends his book speaking about the growth of a misunderstanding about what grounded theory is that has been created by the proliferation of software tools for qualitative analysis. He is speaking from the perspective of 1999 looking back at what has happened in the 1990s. Pointing to work by Coffey in 1996, he describes how "the centrality of coding in both software for qualitative analysis and in grounded theory promotes an 'unnecessary close equation of grounded theory, coding, and software'" (qtd. in Dey 271). The mechanics of coding made more simple through computer software combines with the methodology of qualitative analysis that introduced the notion of "coding" to qualitative analysis to the point that "to code" meant "to engage in grounded theory." Any systematic analysis of data via "coding" meant grounded theory. And worse, as Dey notes, this convergence has resulted in "an uncritical attitude toward methodology" (271-2). Although these views equating qualitative analysis (coding) into one methodology (grounded theory) have been disputed, and I don't think anyone now would equate them, Dey speaks of a time when grounded theory became trendy and was used uncritically thanks to these computer software tools. Dey sums up the general problem in this trend: "It seems that anxieties over the convergence of qualitative research around a single methodology, which takes coding as the core of theorizing, may be well-founded" (272). The culprit seems to be the introduction of software tools that make coding and then the relating of categories through the retrieval of data easier. Dey's larger critique is that this process of theory generation and qualitative analysis becomes "mechanistic" and is done uncritically.

What his book reveals is that the we shouldn't blame the software tools for promoting a "mechanistic approach" because the seeds for this approach are there within grounded theory, as articulated by Glaser and Strauss. I'll list some of these tendencies in grounded theory that he says can lead toward a mechanistic and uncritical approach:

The inclination to consider coding as an aconceptual process
Observation is presented as atheoretical
Coding is said to be emergent rather than constructed
Theory is something we "discover"
Categories are conceived as separate concepts that are later connected
Process is analyzed through "slices of time" (rather than through an evolutionary analysis) (273)

He notes that it is fairly ironic and a case of unintended consequences that grounded theory has become reduced to these narrower, mechanistic approaches because of its stress on creativity and openness of analysis. As Dey states in his last lines of the book, "The dangers of a mechanistic approach cannot be avoided merely through exhortation. It requires reflection on the origins of the particular path taken and the problems it leaves unresolved" (273). Thanks to this book by Dey, I hope I will be able to avoid a mechanistic and uncritical engagement with my own research, and I believe he has given me tools to better understand what I will be doing as I start this analysis and the choices open to me and that I make.

The daunting task for me now seems to be to possess the adequate level of comprehension to do this research. It seems very complex. The thought occurred to me that I felt like a basketball player who has just been drafted to a new team, and he doesn't now the plays and the different schemes used for offence and defence. He's sent out on to the court to play, but things are happening so fast he doesn't know what is going on. Before I get out on the court (figuratively speaking), I hope to understand the dynamics at work more and about my choices. Since I am supposed to do a presentation for the May Workshop, I think I will make it on Grounded Theory so that I can use this task to get a stronger grasp on what I will be doing.

Preliminary Thinking on Sampling

2009-04-09T12:14:00.004-06:00

My lunch today with Fred was primarily about how and what to sample in the TOPIC database. I've talked to Becky about this sampling question also, as well as John Horner (my "every man audience"). Plus, I'm doing a fair amount of thinking about it from my reading. What I want to do at this point is jot down some of my thoughts right now about what and how I would sample from TOPIC.

First, I need to keep in mind that my sampling is theoretical (that is, theory driven). This goal may be hard for the initial sample, and hard to predict for future samples because the emerging theory should guide the selection of data. I in no way need to make my sample in some way representative or of a certain number to be valid. No.

One thing I have noticed when others have thought about this question of what and how to pull data from the TOPIC vault is that people can see it as overwhelming. John Horner offered the advice to be careful not to set up a project that might take me years to do. He was seeing the vastness of the data and conjectured I would have to do some kind of research sample that would encompass the entire pool of data. No. No. Becky looked at it and paused at the amount and the complexity of the data. Each I felt had a sort of Grand Canyon moment--this is BIG.

Fred and I are in agreement that these Writer's Reviews documents should be viewed within the context of an entire Writing Cycle. In addition, he is leaning toward examining the relationship between what is said and happens in Writer's Reviews and what is said and done in subsequent drafts. Of course, this relationship is what is most interesting, and it is what other researchers have discovered is ambiguous. What students say they will do for revision and what they actually do can be quite different. I diverge from Fred a little bit in that I want to look at some Writer's Reviews just on their own as well.

The semesters of data I have chosen are these:
Year 04-05 1301 and 1302 (called (05-1301 and 05-1302)
Year 05-06 1301 and 1302 (called 06-1301 and 06-1302)

My current thought is that I will get a broad sample of writing reviews for my initial sample. I might also keep this sample fairly small so that I can make mistakes and it won't cost me a lot of time or effort, but it will be substantial enough for me to sink my teeth into the researching. For each course, I thought I would grab Writer's Reviews from Essay #2 and Essay #3.

I wish I could do tables in here, but here is my proposed selection.

For each essay in each class and year, I would grab two Writer's Review from draft #1 and two Writer's Reviews from draft #2 (4 Writer's Reviews for each essay and each year). That adds up to 32 isolated Writer's Reviews. In addition, I would pull a sample of full Essay Cycles from each course and each essay. A full Essay Cycle includes the every draft, every peer response, every Document Instructor response and grade, and every Writer's Review for the entire draft. I propose pulling two full Essay Cycles from each course and for each essay--that equates to 16 full Writing Cycles. I could modify this number down to 12 full Essay Cycles (6 from 1301 and 6 from 1302). 12 sounds more manageable to me, so I am not sure.

Fred might say only to do the full essay cycles, but I'm thinking I want the mix of Writing Reviews in isolation and then some in context. Hmm... I wonder if I should have some that are the same so that I could do a pass through of the data out of context and then look at it again in context. Hmm... . I have to consider that one.

This initial sample seems like it is large enough and broad enough to give me a base from which to then go in more particular directions depending up the emergence of my theory. My next quandary has to do with whether I will use a qualitative researching software tool. I probably will use one, but which one. It would be nice for me to be able to import a bunch of this text into the software program, but it looks like I may have to copy and past it in. ... More to look into.

On Coding in Grounded Theory

2009-04-07T04:56:00.005-06:00

Dey has a fairly unsatisfactory chapter on coding because he truly shoots some holes into Grounded Theory in his discussion about coding. He opens with a good distinction between categorization and coding: "With categories we impute meanings, with coding we compute them. The former involves a creative leap, for 'comprehending experience via metaphor is one of the great imaginative triumphs of the human mind' (Lakoff, 1987, p. 303). The latter involves reduction and ready reckoning" (95). It is interesting how Dey uses uncommon words such as "impute" and "reckon"--one involves a leap, while the other involves reduction (pulling back and being conservative). These seem like contrary impulses.

Dey provides a bit of historical perspective on the term "coding" and notes with some ironic amusement that it has been the combination of grounded theory and computer analysis tools that has led to the term"coding" as being the term describing the key process in qualitative analysis. What is ironic is that coding comes from the quantitative use of survey methods where "coding" happens to analyze surveys that have "precoded" questions. The survey already has within it the concepts and categories so that when the surveys are analyzed the researcher identifies and assigns the appropriate codes to responses and tabulates them. Dey notes that in qualitative analysis the researcher does not have the conceptualization already complete as they review the data because it is yet to be accomplished (96).

However, Glaser and Strauss strongly believe "coding and analysis proceed jointly in grounded theory" (96). Thus they contrast grounded theory from other qualitative methodologies that would code first then analyze second (separating the processes). What this joint coding and analysis exactly looks like, I am not sure. In this section distinguishing coding in grounded theory, Dey notes a point Glaser and Strauss emphatically make: "they reject the method of coding data 'into crudely quantifiable form' in order to test hypotheses, since they are interested in generating theory rather than verifying it" (96). My first reading of this emphatic point was that they rejected the idea of analyzing to determine a code from which you next test (which is what my research design provisionally contains). I now see that I may have been reading too much into this quote. What they seem to say is not to count your data--there is no need to determine the number of occurrences of a concept or interaction, especially if this counting is done in order to support some hypothesis or theory the researcher has as they come to the data. As Dey says, "coding is governed only by theoretical relevance and is not concerned with the accumulation of supporting evidence" (96). I wonder about this claim since I believe computer analysis tools can easily provide you a graphical representation of the prevalence of a particular code (such as a tag cloud). I'll see this possibility more as I get into using these computer analysis tools. The last key points about coding Dey stresses is that coding is a method to make conceptualization explicit, and its function is "to generate rather than test a theory" (97). One must resist, then, impulses to turn coding into a hunt for verification, it seems.

The orthodox Grounded Theory view toward coding is that it proceeds in phases:

Categorize the data (open coding)
Connect the categories (theoretical or axiel coding)
Focus on a core category (selective coding) (98)

In his discussion about this breaking down of the data, especially in the initial open coding, Dey indulges himself by countering analysis with "holism." His basic point seems to be twofold--taking a big picture, holistic view may reveal things that narrow analysis will miss, and that through this holism we may tap into what he calls "direct understandings" of the world better. These direct understandings come from our "bodily experience in the world" and they may be "both rich and routine" (102). Dey seems to be going off on a strange tangent here, but I think his call to maintain a big picture awareness as one focuses on the microscopic is wise, and it is our "sensitizing experience" that can guide this holistic analysis.

Dey offers another innovation (we might say) toward coding. This time he offers a counter viewpoint to the notion of phases and the idea that you categorize first and then connect these categories. Dey's point is this: "categories cannot be considered in isolation. Categories acquire their meaning in part from their place in the wider scheme of things... . ...discrimination among objects may depend on their place in a larger taxonomy" (105). Rather than category sets, Dey chooses the metaphor of "category strings" to represent how categories exist within a network of other categories. Thinking of Lakoff, Dey is stressing the point that any category/categorization activates a larger conceptual framework, and we need to be aware of this network of connections. His point is that "in grounded theory, the division between open coding and axial coding needs to be treated with caution" (105). His point is that we need not wait to uncover links between categories as we open code (I think), and that we need to be aware of these larger "strings" of relationships within the categories we declare. It makes me think a bit about activity theory.

Next Dey considers Axial Coding in more detail, first discussing Strauss and Corbin's "coding paradigm" (1987). Strauss' coding paradigm examines: conditions, interaction among the actors, strategies and tactics, and consequences (106). The value of this coding paradigm is its clarity that makes the entire process of coding more manageable. You know what you are doing with this paradigm. Dey questions why this paradigm should be privileged? Glaser criticized Strauss' "coding paradigm" because it ignored Glaser's work on "theoretical coding": "Instead of 'forcing' the data to fit a pregiven paradigm, Glaser suggests we consider a range of theoretical options of which the proposed paradigm is only one" (107). Glaser in is 1978 book lists sixteen "coding families" that provide a range of options for coding (107). Glaser stresses that a coding family should only be used once it is indicated by the data. Dey questions what to do if more than one family could fit the data, thus making the choice of a coding family arbitrary.

The final part of this chapter discusses "core categories" in detail. Core categories are central for grounded theory. As Glaser believes, "The aim of producing a grounded theory that is relevant and workable to practitioners requires conceptual delimitation" (110). Core categories are where the researcher deliminits their categorization. Glaser believes a core category has to "earn its privileged position" (111) by containing these qualities (or meeting these criteria): "[it] has to be central, stable, complex integrative, incisive, powerful, and highly variable" (111). Dey questions why only ONE category is chosen, and not more. He blasts grounded theory at this point for forcing a fit, and what obviously involves an "elimination of alternative accounts" (112). He criticizes the core category as also being paradoxical in terms of its role as both dependent and independent variable.

All these critiques come back to the basic difficulty of dealing with subjectivities when coding data. This quote from Dey seems to express the difficulty well: "The construction of a category or the appropriateness of assigning it to some part of the date will undoubtedly reflect our wider comprehensions--both of the data and what we are trying to do with it. The researcher (who brings to categorization an evolving set of assumptions, biases, and sensitivities) cannot be eliminated from this process" (104). I knew this truth before, but seeing it spelled out in more detail in this chapter makes the entire process seem more and more daunting.

Categories and Categorization in Grounded Theory

2009-04-05T04:59:00.006-06:00

This blog post will attempt to make sense of Ian Dey's long chapter on Categories and Categorization in Grounded Theory. Categories are maddeningly confusing, and at times it seems what Dey reveals in this chapter is like the soft underbelly of a dragon.

Let's start by presenting definitions:
Categories are conceptual "and never just a name or a label" (49). Categories are said to stand alone and refer to a class of things.

Properties, though, can't stand alone and are "conceptual characteristics of a category" (51). They refer to external to external relationships and relate through interaction.

Dimensions represent the spectrum of variation possible within properties. Dey says, "Identifying dimensions therefore involves (internal) differentiation rather than (external) comparison" (52).

I will chart out Dey's example illustrating these three concepts below:

Category-- color
Properties-- shade, intensity, and hue
Dimensions--intensity can be high or low, hue can be dark or light

Dey says this example illustrates the orthodox distinction between properties and dimensions. Here is one good quote from Dey: "Whereas properties and dimensions 'belong' to the thing itself, the categories to which we assign it do not belong to the thing itself but are part of how we choose to classify it" (54). He stresses the point that categories are derived through comparison.

Dey uncovers a confusion within the analytic processes that each of these three refers to. He says that we can apply all of these analytic processes to the same phenomenon. He stresses that each process of analysis has a different purpose: "We use categories to distinguish and compare; we identify properties and attributes to analyze agency and effects; and we measure dimensions to identify more precisely the characteristics of what we are studying" (57). Dey feels that distinguishing these three concepts through purpose is better than seeing them as varying levels of abstraction.

The next section in the chapter presents the classical view of categories as elements in theory. Dey presents this summary before undercutting it completely. Theorizing involves discovering how categories relate to each other, and GT seems to have two ways of relating: one is through relations of similarity and difference, and second through connection and interaction. He provides this example of relating a cat, dog, and bone.

Formal relations based on similarity and difference: puts the cat and dog together
Substantive relations based on connections: puts the dog and bone together

Our understanding of substantive connections is based upon our observation of the process.

Digging deeper, Dey tackles Glaser's "concept indicator model" which Glaser claims "provides the essential link between data and concept" (qtd. in Dey 60). The meaning of the category (or code) is defined in terms of its indicators. Dey uses the example of prejudice as a concept (category). We can't observe the abstract concept of prejudice, but we see it in action, so to speak--through its "indicators." We can look at statements or actions and identify them as indicators of prejudice. Glaser believes that constant comparative analysis slowly builds concepts through "the careful combination of indicators." Concepts, then, become "the 'sum' of its indicators (61). Dey has some questions about Glasers concept-indicator model.

Summing up the chapter, Dey points out that one of the special characteristics of grounded theory "is its firm location in an interactionist methodology." It is focused on explicating social processes in dynamic terms. I think this characteristic of GT is important to remember. The elements of theory--categories, properties, dimensions--and the process of categorization--constant comparison, focus on indicators--all facilitate this interactionist methodology.

Next Dey digs the deepest into "categorization"--the fundamental process of distinguishing and classifying. Here is where things get messy. Dey explores modern developments in categorization that question the simple concept-indicator model of Glaser and it process of basing categorization upon judgments of similarity and difference that seems to figure so largely in GT. As Dey says quite simply: "The identification of categories on the basis of similarity and difference turns out to be rather problematic ... [and] in practice the process of drawing distinctions is much more complicated and ambiguous than the concept-indicator model allows" (66). Great. Pull the rug out from underneath me. Dey reveals that categorization is much more variable than Glaser describes it in his concept-indicator model and "it challenges any simple assumption that categories are 'indicated' by data in a straightforward way" (75).

Dey goes on to describe three alternative understandings of categorization from scholarship done since the 1967 advent of GT. The chapter is dense, so I will include Dey's own summary:

"In the above discussion, we can identify at least four different accounts of categorization. First, we have the classic account, which assumes that category boundaries are crisp, membership is based on common features, and relations between categories are governed by logical operations. Second, we have 'fuzzy' sets, where category boundaries become vague, membership is graded, and relationships between categories become a matter of degree. Third, we have the 'prototypical' model, which stresses the role of category exemplars and shifts focus from membership to degrees of fit. Finally, we have categorization in terms of 'idealized cognitive models' (this is Lakoff) which 'motivate' the creation of categories through various forms of 'chaining' and 'extension'" (86).

After revealing the basic instability of categories and the process of categorization, Dey seems to mollify his reader by stating a hopeful message: "while the processes of categorization may not be strictly logical, neither are they entirely arbitrary" (87). He then provides a number of things the researcher needs to do to render her analysis not entirely arbitrary:

Render the cognitive processes of categorization explicit (i.e which of the four approaches to categorization will you take)
Assess the adequacy of the cognitive process in terms of the underlying cognitive assumptions employed.
Recognize the various processes involved in categorization
Identify the aims of categorization (for example, prediction or inference)
Make more explicit the grounds (cue or category validity) on which these categories can be realized
Identify the underlying conceptual models and make explicit their metonomyic or metaphorical extensions (a la Lakoff) (87)

This list is quite daunting, and to me seems to require a level of self-awareness that might be impossible to achieve. I believe that I can attempt to define these foundations for my categorization before I start coding, but I may not be able to get far until I start coding data. Coming back to this list will probably be an important thing to do after my pilot study.

The larger point of Dey's chapter is summed up in a statement he makes near the end of the chapter: "In grounded theory innocence is preserved and bias precluded by allowing categories to emerge from (and hence correspond to) the data. But Lakoff's analysis suggests that such innocence is impossible to achieve. We think in terms of categories and our categories are structured in terms of our prior experience and knowledge" (92-3). Grounded theory, Dey, believes must reassess how it categorizes in light of new theories that challenge and expand "how categories are actually assigned and used in the production of knowledge" (91).

I always knew that the original description of generating categories from the data was naive; however, Dey has overwhelmed me with the detailed description of this inadequacy. Yet I would rather be aware of these problems and strategically (and perhaps rhetorically) chart my approach to categorization and analysis that enter this forest without a plan. I am hopeful that Dey will offer more explicit suggestions as I keep reading.

A Mixed Marriage Or: Having Your Cake and Eating it Too

2009-03-30T20:13:00.003-06:00

Grounded Theory, as Ian Dey points out, contains unresolved tensions coming from its origins in rival traditions. Glaser came from Columbia University and brought the rigor associated with quantitative survey methods. Numbers serve as facts that tell generalizable truths. Strauss, however, came from the University of Chicago, and his background was in "symbolic interactionism" and its tradition of qualitative research. The following is a encapsulation of symbolic interactionism from wikipedia:

Herbert Blumer (1969), who coined the term "symbolic interactionism," set out three basic premises of the perspective:

"Human beings act toward things on the basis of the meanings they ascribe to those things."
"The meaning of such things is derived from, or arises out of, the social interaction that one has with others and the society."
"These meanings are handled in, and modified through, an interpretive process used by the person in dealing with the things he/she encounters."

Blumer, following Mead, claimed that people interact with each and other by interpret[ing] or 'defin[ing]' each other's actions instead of merely reacting to each other's actions. Their 'response' is not made directly to the actions of one another but instead is based on the meaning which they attach to such actions. Thus, human interaction is mediated by the use of symbols signification, by interpretation, or by ascertaining the meaning of one another's actions (Blumer 1962). Blumer contrasted this process, which he called "symbolic interaction," with behaviorist explanations of human behavior, which don't allow for interpretation between stimulus and response.

As Dey summarizes, "In the marriage of these two traditions, it was intended to harness the logic and rigor of quantitative methods to the rich interpretive insights of the symbolic interactionist tradition" (25). These two traditions are described as "naturalistic inquiry" and "variable analysis." Dey points out that later interpreters of Grounded Theory have leaned more toward the symbolic interactionist side of this marriage and bemoaned the quantitative roots of Grounded Theory. Naturalistic inquiry is valued for its ability to provide rich and deep interpretation that is contextually based, while variable analysis "facilitated easy measurement" and variables that were "consistent and stable" (27). How can this fixed and rational logic of variable analysis be married with naturalistic inquiry? Dey sets out to explain how Glaser and Strauss accomplish this strange blending of methodologies. His first explanation sets out the broad approach of Glaser and Strauss: "They locate inquiry in naturalistic settings, focused on interaction and its interpretation; and they construe analysis in terms of the identification of categories (variables?) and their relationships" (27). So inquiry and data gathering are purely qualitative, but when it comes to analyzing this data, it becomes more fixed and quantitative in nature. Can this be?

Dey identifies two bridges G&S create to make this marriage work. The first is the use of Categories as a "means of mediating between transient interpretations on the one hand and stable conceptualization on the other" (27). The term "categories" is used instead of variables or values. The second bridge Dey identifies is their notion that "theory can be grounded as it is generated" (27). Fluid concepts can be fixed through this back and forth interpretation between theory and data (the "constant comparative method"). The word G&S have for this connection between concepts (that indicate or lead to theory) and data is "sensitizing" (28). That means that these concepts "remain meaningful in the context of everyday interaction" (28).

Many problems, as Dey points out, exist with this strange mixing of methodologies, but I find I am attracted to GT because it seeks this hybrid goal toward knowledge. If one views GT from a strictly qualitative view point, I can see that they would miss the generalizable ambitions of GT. I believe everything is context-dependent; however, many similarities still exist across contexts and should be acknowledges as well. How come the hero has a thousand faces? Yet, how can we acknowledge and include the rich variety and influence of specific contexts? Can't we find a way to acknowledge both?

I think it is this mixed marriage found uneasily within the roots of GT that attracts me to this methodology. It does seek some generalizable truths (especially as the researcher moves from substantive to formal theory), and it has faith in systematic rigor for revealing truth, yet it must still be sensitized and matched with specific contexts. I need to feel out this paradoxical epistemology that seems to be at the heart of GT and think more about what that way of knowing and seeing the world means. I'm uncomfortable with an extremely context-dependent view of truth, yet I don't believe a transcendent truth that is devoid of context completely. There must be some middle ground.

Facing up to issues in grounded theory research --preconceived frameworks and verification

2009-03-25T11:06:00.007-06:00

"The very attraction of grounded theory may lie in the way it obliges us--because of its commitment to theory--to face up to some fairly basic issues about the nature of social research. If we accept the elementary (but awkward) principle that to do research requires reflection on what we are doing and how we do it, at the very least we should try to confront and clarify these issues." Grounding Grounded Theory (1999), Ian Dey p. 24

This is the first of a number of posts I will make discussing grounded theory and my own interpretation of the methodology. As Dey points out, there are a "plurality of 'interpretations'" of grounded theory that seem to fall into three camps: 1) the orthodoxy of Glaser, 2) the safe schemas of Strauss and Corbin, or 3) the doctrine of dimensionality of Schatzman. I have increasingly developed a sense of what grounded theory is through reading, but as I do more reading in preparation actually to perform the methods of grounded theory analysis, I feel that I need to coalesce some of my thinking. That's what these posts will be, and I anticipate that they will continue through the researching process.

I want to talk about two questions that Dey raises at the end of his first chapter in the book cited above. Here's the first one:

--How much scope does grounded theory allow for adopting preconceived frameworks as an aid to analysis?

This question is, of course, the source of the big break between Glaser and Strauss (and Corbin). Glaser adheres to the principle that the researcher should lay aside all preconceptions and theories as they analyze data. This question gets at the scope that will be allowed for adopting preconceived conceptual frameworks. This doesn't necessarily mean a particular theory but simply the use of ANY frameworks ahead of time for understanding data.

It seems to me that the question is moot since it is impossible NOT to bring conceptual frameworks and even theories with us as we examine data. I suppose we could get too worked up over this point, but I very much have hinged my study on faulting previous theory building for creating that theory through deductive analysis of data based on outside theories. Theories to understand data. I want to go the other way--data to form a theory to understand the data. Thus, I think I need to side more in the camp with Glaer. One comment made in chapter 2 about categories seems relevant here: "Glaser and Strauss (1967, pp. 240-41) present categories as 'sensitizing' concepts that related meaningfully to the realities of interaction (as perceived by participants)" (28). I think the last part is significant. I need to key into as much as possible how my participants are seeing this interaction and representing it. The important thing is not my interpretation of the interaction, but their interpretation (or my interpretation of their interpretation). The data itself will indicate the concepts that will emerge.

Strauss and Corbin developed a particular method for "integrative coding" rather than allowing for broader possibilities for coding. Strauss and Corbin's "coding paradigm" followed conditions, context, action/interaction strategies, and consequences. This is what is referred to as "axiel coding." They believed the use of this coding paradigm "allowed data to be related systematically in complex ways" (Dey 11). I look at this paradigm and I am immediately reminded of Aristotle's Topoi. The topics from which the rhetor selects his or her arguments. I, personally, don't see a huge problem with applying these analytical heuristics to the data to see what they reveal. It seems that Strauss and Corbin are creating a more detailed procedure to guide coding data and analyzing it. Glaser would be more open an improvisational in his coding.

A bigger question regards how much will I bring in theories and preconceived ideas regarding rhetorical reflection into my analysis. Strauss and Corbin allow a number of different options for possibly using theory. My stance, I think, will be this:
--define my preconceived theories, ideas, and biases
--set them aside
--code with an open mind
--see what happens

I think in my initial pilot coding I will try to be "objective" and let the data speak. When I have what I hear the data saying I may then turn to my theory to give it a name or an explanation. I'll just have to feel out what I will do. From my reading of Strauss and Corbin, I believe they adopt this approach which is flexible and allows the use of theory if it seem appropriate. My thinking right now may reflect that I have read more from Strauss and Corbin than Glaser (other than the 1967 book). I have ordered three Glaser books to look at, so I may learn more about his approach and change my mind. For now, Strauss and Corbin seem to outline a better procedure to follow for doing the coding successfully (and systematically).

Second question:
What place has verification in grounded theory?

This question has significance for me because the current research design I will follow involves grounded theory analysis to develop a coding instrument and then a test to see how well this coding instrument is useful for analysis through a large scale content/rhetorical analysis of student reflective texts.

So I would generate and then verify--all in one dissertation study.

The issue of verification of theory for grounded theory is complex. Glaser's position is that verification has no place in grounded theory--it is a different methodology. Grounded theory takes two positions toward verification. One position is that verification is left to others researchers at a different time. Grounded theory's job is not verification, so it would go against this purpose of grounded theory to have a study that involved both generation and verification of theory. The second position of grounded theory regarding verification is that the theory generated from grounded theory contains implicit verification within it because it fits the data. There is no need to check the theory because these ideas are induced from the data--to verify the theory we need only look at the data. I believe I am oversimplifying things--as Dey mentions there is "ambivalence in grounded theory about the status of discovery and verification" (38). It is clear to me, as well, that "verification" has two different meanings in these two positions.

I am reluctant to make my own study a two part study where I generate and then verify. Not only would it possibly make my study very large and time consuming, but it would violate some of the principles of grounded theory methodology (it seems to me). Also, I conceive of my study as the initial stage of theory building where a more homogeneous set of data is examined. The second stage is to maximize differences in one's theoretical sampling to see how the theory becomes refined.

What If?

2009-03-21T21:08:00.002-06:00

What if the researchers into brain imaging talked about in this NPR story were to focus their research on the influence of "reflection" on brain function?

Reflection has this belief surrounding it--it is magical. It has super powers. It is almost as if we were to put students/people into the telephone booth of reflection, and POOF! Out they come with a new understanding, even perhaps with a transformed view of the world.

I have been gravitated to reflection because I see it as the central mediating factor for learning (and action). Mediation. What does that mean? It means it has to be added, it has to be passed through, it is the lever to make something happen. I have particularly associated it with the classical notion of phronesis or practical wisdom. It is the application of knowledge to particular contexts.

What if... we were able to do brain scans of people engaged in reflective thinking? What would it show? What parts of the brain would be stimulated? How would this brain function differ from other kinds of brain function?

Wouldn't it be amazing if I were to talk these researchers into studying the brain on reflection! It seems like it would be a good idea. Reflection has this high and hollowed place in the kingdom of thinking; surely researchers would be interested in studying these kinds of higher order brain functions.

Oh--and could we detail physiologically developmental differences in reflective thinking? To confirm the research from King and Kitchener. Wouldn't that matter? If we knew better what our students were capable of cognitively, wouldn't that matter? It seems to me that it would.

I'm just dreaming here. Maybe I should try a letter to these folks doing this brain scanning research just for grins. Maybe the social sciences can join hands with the hard sciences.

What if?

Zeroing in on Researching

2009-03-19T14:27:00.002-06:00

My sights are now set on getting prepared to start my the actual grounded theory coding, so this post will be about planning. I have a window while my IRB is getting approved, so I need to take full advantage of that time.

IRB Window
--Rrice has draft, may need some edits, hopefully signed and to the IRB no later than 3/27
--IRB approval optimistically in 10 working days, but it could be more. IRB approval by 4/13-4/27?

So I have roughly three to six weeks to get ready. That's lots of time. To be honest, I should have had this IRB done in mid-January. Nevertheless, I will work within the constraints I have and try to make full use of this time.

Preparation Tasks: (not in any especial order)

Secure access for Fred to copy of TOPIC from Susan
Work with Fred and Rich for what I will want from the database and what might be my first slice of data
Brainstorm and get input on just how I will approach this mountain of data--initially, the most important thing is to determine what will be my first slice of data
Secure copies of each of the textbooks/curriculum guides for 1301/1302 for 2004-2006 (I have some of them already, but I think I have to scramble for the others). Review this curriculum.
Review how to do grounded theory coding, perhaps practice a bit with other writing examples (maybe peer responses or something)
Get a couple of other grounded theory analysis books via ILL
Explore if I will use a qualitative analysis software program like ATLAS-TI or NVIVO and practice using the tool
Do a theoretical bias inventory--that is, lay out my thoughts on what I think and the theories I have about rhetorical reflection. This must be carefully done. Which leads to next point--
Investigate and get some help about how to code and balance one's theory and observations.
Make a plan for what my "pilot" study will be--that is, what will I do (in a rigorous and systematic way...) to process my "pilot" study (which is my first slice of data)
Make initial investigations about what might be possible eventually with larger scale "data-mining" within the database and the eventual qualitative analysis of quantitative data (I've had some correspondence with Gloria McMillan on this subject)

I think this is a pretty thorough list, and I'm glad I have a bit of time to prepare. If by chance you can spot any other things that might need to be done or specific suggestions for individual tasks, please let me know.

That's the plan for now. I'm going to tape it up on my wall...

Slow working on the proposal

2009-02-14T09:14:00.002-06:00

I've just had a morning session working on the proposal, and I thought I would process it with a bit of thinking on paper about how it is going. It is really interesting to "feel" how this writing is going. First, it goes slowly. My sense of what I am doing is like carving or perhaps it is more modular like building a wall or a lego. I am taking pieces and fitting them in and fitting them together. But it is a bit more than that. I am creating pieces that themselves are often formulated by taking other pieces and shaping them to fit in and together. So it is slow work. I have this image of a mason who builds a rock wall and chips and breaks stone pieces to fit in. The mason also trowels cement into gaps and lubricates the fitting together of pieces. All I can say is it is slow going.

What I think is taking shape better is what this Proposal as a first chapter of the dissertation is about--what it is and what it is for. I believe I have an opening that sets the problem fairly well with a concrete example (as Fred said I should). I think that concern or as Fred says the "friction" underlying my study is fairly clear. I am now working on the "So What?"--the reason why writing teachers should be interested in this study too. My main rationale is based upon premises for how we learn and what we understand the activity of writing is. I'm a bit worried that this discussion about premises may be seen as a digression, especially as right now they are long, but I think these concerns are important. They also happen to be chunks I have been able to import in-whole from my qualifying exam. Again, I don't know if that is a good idea, but there they are. I'm not complete in fashioning and refashioning them to fit and work yet.

My next task will be to clearly define the relatively narrow focus of my study--rhetorical reflection. Again, I have a worthy chunk from my quals I can fit in here, but I believe it will take a fair bit of refashioning. I think this can be followed by a restatement of the significance of the subject of study (the WGRA) and the problem underlying the subject of study. It will be in this section that I will have to gauge how to bring in the inadequacy of current theory and how far I go in delving into this inadequacy in this section or if I leave it to the Lit Review. This recap of the significance and problem will lead into my research question--the guiding direction for pursuing a better understanding of this subject.

What I guess I am seeing now a bit better is how the first chapter is simply setting the problem, clarifying the place this problem/study has for the field, and clearly defining the subject of study. I think I am getting a bit better sense of the difference between it and the lit review.

We shall see if I can reach my 2/20 deadline for this draft. I NEED to make this deadline, so I will do my best.

On to THE Proposal

2009-02-04T05:50:00.002-06:00

I feel to a degree like in this proposal I need to get all the stars to line up. I need to pull together the laser-like focus and clarity of my subject. As a genre, the dissertation has a certain "feel" about it. It has a kind of drama to it that should pull the audience/reader into the story and get them wanting to find out what will happen. The dissertation seems to follow this sequence:

80% of Proposal is Draft of Chapter 1 for Dissertation:
Dramatic illustration of the subject/problem?
What is it? (the subject)
Exploration of the problem
What stabs have others made at the problem/ or inadequate stabs made by others at the problem
With the problem revealed and the inadequate attempts to get at it by others--there is a need to examine this problem further
Mission statement for the inquiry of the dissertation

Remaining Parts of the Proposal (20%)
Summary of chapters or sections:
II. Literature Review--assembling and filtering the ideas of others on the subject/problem
III. Methodology/Methods
IV. Findings/Results
V. Implications (of the BIG SOCKO ending!)

Some thoughts on where I am with producing this Proposal.
If we follow the planets metaphor I mentioned earlier, I feel like the planets are scattered across the sky. I don't need to create new planets at this point; I need to bring them all into alignment. Between my work on the Qualifying Exam and my Preproposal, I feel like I have most all the parts or components to put together the Proposal. It is just now a matter of reconstructing them into the dissertation drama.

Fred emphasized a couple points. He said the dissertation should follow a kind of arch where is starts very grounded in concrete experience and situations. He talked about "anchoring the problem" in a clear example or set of examples. Since my dissertation is one on a pedagogical practice, this has to mean anchoring in a specific teaching situation. Theory is fine and good, but it needs to be brought back to earth. At the end of the dissertation, I will need to bring it back to earth. He also stressed the importance (again) of writing for a general audience. I need to make what I am talking about VERY clear. It might help me to think of a generalized figure for my audience. Who might it be? One of my colleagues at SAC? Perhaps.

I feel like I still am struggling a bit with what the major goal of chapter 1 is. How can I get at the friction without getting too far into my literature review? I suppose I did that somewhat in the Preproposal, but the "Identifying the Problem Requiring Research" section was only two pages long. My "What is the Gap" section came AFTER my literature review. I feel like if I can only frame clearly for myself what it is that I need to do and accomplish in Chpt. 1 I will be fine. Get this clarity for me is complicated by this question of where the literature review fits in relation to revealing the problem (the friction).

It seems like my chpt. 1 needs a section of WHAT IS IT? (definition of rhetorical reflection). I have a pretty darn good stab at this question thanks to the Quals. Perhaps if I think of Chapt. 1 as only revealing the problem and the need to inquiry into it, not elaborating into it thoroughly, that will help. It does help. OK, so here is how it might go:

I. Chpt. 1
--Illustration of the problem, anchored example of "what it is" and "what the problem is with it"
--More detailed description of What is rhetorical reflection?
--Discussion of significance for field
--Revealing the problem
--Charting the path for inquiring into this problem and what drives it (the SO WHAT?)

I still need to dig into a dissonance I am feeling about how to reveal the problem without getting too involved in my literature review, especially as I have a complicated problem that says
--there is a problem with our practice and it COULD be from how we have theorized our practice
That's a two step move. I can't chart my path of inquiry as being about generating a theory without this two step move. Hmm... still thinking.

He also has an analogy to describe the problem. He called it "friction." Chapter 1 establishes that there is friction. Chapter II is how to find out how to make friction less friction.

Researching Rhetorical Reflection

2009-01-14T05:36:00.002-06:00

Introduction—A Summary of the Research Problem and Research Question
The “felt difficulty” (as Dewey would say) triggering this research inquiry is the ambiguous and problematic nature of rhetorical reflection within the activity of writing. Linda Flower's questions about reflection remain: we don't know what kind of knowledge this kind of strategic reflection generates, and we aren't sure if the activity is significant enough to warrant inclusion in the curriculum (is it just a luxury?) (228, 229). Writing teachers experience uncertainties about the nature and purpose of reflection and difficulties in using it in the classroom. Despite having a rich theory surrounding reflection that posits an alchemical quality onto the act of reflection for mediating learning, action, and problem-solving in positive ways, teachers experience mixed results when using reflection with their students. One hypothesis I have is that the source of our problems with reflection in practice is with our theories of reflection and how they were generated. Most theories of how reflection works have been generated either from speculative theorizing based upon logical deductions from other theories, or from interpreting classroom experiences (and in some cases research) in terms of theories or models (such as Hayes' 1996 model of revision). What is lacking is a theory generated from data, from actual instances of rhetorical reflections, untainted by preconceived theories of what reflection is and should do. My goal, then, with this research is to generate a grounded theory of rhetorical reflection that presents a description and understanding of rhetorical reflection (a theory) that fits with the actual phenomenon and works in practice when put into use. With this grounded theory, we won't “know” if rhetorical reflection works or not; instead, we'll have a better understanding of what rhetorical reflection is and how it works or does not work. This grounded understanding, then, will help guide teachers' practice using rhetorical reflection in the classroom and their own ongoing theorizing about it.

The working Research Question I have for my inquiry is:
How do teacher-prompted rhetorical reflections related to learning and writing practice for freshman writers negotiating the activity of writing?

I should also stress again that this research study is about generating theory—not validating it. The methodologies, methods, goals, and assumptions underlying generating rather than validating theory differ greatly, allowing for much more various and looser sampling and methods for gathering data. In the discussion that follows, I will explicate and examine my research study in more detail. I should mention that I have found the December CCC article “The Importance of Harmony: An Ecology Metaphor for Writing Research” helpful in framing my research, and you will see that I have interpreted these questions with this ecological metaphor in mind.

Locating My Study in Terms of Open and Closed Systems—Phenomenon of Study
In this section, I will attempt to describe the local subject of my study in terms of it being a closed or open system. I would have to say that the 2004-2006 First Year Writing Program at Texas Tech University (FYWP at TTU) in its curriculum, writing pedagogy, and writing produced by students is both a closed and open system. This discussion will attempt to map out the features of the writing ecology.

Chris Anson and Clay Spinuzzi offer definitions of closed and open systems that I will then apply to the FYWP. As Clay Spinuzzu describes it, open systems create a productive balance between structure and innovation and uses the analogy of an a starter reef to describe an open system: “An open system is a centrally designed artifact, of course, but it exists as a nexus for workers' innovations, just as an artificial reef functions as a nexus for a developing underwater ecology” (205). Chris Anson describes the activity of writing as an open system: “In the sense in which activity theorist and genre theoriest have described it, writing takes place in an open system: as constantly evolving, contextually mediated, and contextually determined practices, influenced by social and institutional histories, conventions, and expectations” (114). Writing is an open system because its rhetorical context calls on writers to innovate (invent) appropriate solutions to the complex constraints and possibilities within specific writing contexts. Closed systems, as Spinuzzi points out, rigidly try to control work such that innovation is “centrally controlled and fine tuned” (202). The goal of the closed system is to “regulate workers' activities” (204). Spinuzzi's work shows how such closed systems inhibit work since the closed system dictates how workers will meet contingencies by generalizing situations and standardizing ways of meeting situations. Anson describes a closed system in this way: “a closed system is one in which the activities admit little variety, are habituated over long periods of time, and are learned through repeated practice” (115). Anson's overall point in his article is that standardized testing has transformed writing instruction in schools into a closed system with the detrimental effect that “the lack of experience [students are getting] in writing in those larger circles would doom them to adaptive failure” (115).

When we examine the FYWP at TTU 2004-2006, we can see how in many ways it is a closed system which seeks to “regulate workers' activities.” Students are put through a repeated sequence of writing feedback loops to habituate them to learning the practice of writing. Not much choice or innovation is offered to students in their activity of writing. This, I would say, is appropriate for a freshman course with the goal of teaching novice writers. However, the course also acts as an open system, as a kind of starter reef, because it is designed to enter students into writing situations that call on them to make choices and problem solve within the writing process. It is in the Writer's Reviews (rhetorical reflections) in particular where students are asked to engage in “reflective practice” that we can say students have the opportunity to innovate and invent their own practice as they face the complex task of determining their own rhetorical stance.

The chart below provides a map of the “ecology” surrounding Writer's Reviews as rhetorical reflections within the FYWP at TTU:
(chart not included)

According to the Ecological Metaphor for Writing Research, the researcher needs to map this ecology out in three ways:
1.Interdependence—the elements of the activity systematic
2.Feedback—the feedback pathways among the elements of the writing ecosystem
3.Diversity—the affordances that limit or increase the multiplicity of options within the systematic
The above chart does a fairly good job of mapping the different elements within this activity system (interdependence) and providing a start for visualizing the different feedback pathways that feed into writer's reviews. The affordances that limit or increase the options are much harder to map because these affordances may vary by particular writing assignment or by how an individual writer interacts within this activity system. Any one of these various interdependent elements of the ecology surrounding Writing Reviews could influence what the student does in these writing reviews greatly. However, I want to make special note of the importance of the Writing Review Prompt. As Jennifer Moon has noted, what distinguishes different kinds of reflection is not the process or nature of the reflection, but the “framework” or purpose for which it is used: “it is the framework or intention and any guidance toward fulfillment of that intention that is significant in distinguishing one act of reflection from another” (Reflection in Learning 15). The prompt for reflection and how it ties in with the overall writing task and the fulfillment of its goals is in my view the most significant affordance within this system.

Description of Methods To Be Used—Method of Study
The goal of my inquiry is to generate a theory of rhetorical reflection. In order to do this, I will employ the methodology of Grounded Theory with its systematic method of coding and analyzing data. Although a full description of Grounded Theory is beyond the scope of this exam, I want to highlight the basic elements of the ecosystem of grounded theory research and its own feedback system for generating theory.

Coding: Open, Axial, Selective
Anselm Strauss and Juliet Corbin define coding as “The Analytic process through which data are fractured, conceptualized, and integrated to form theory” (3). Grounded Theory implements a systematic process of coding data to generate theory. Open Coding involves identifying concepts within the data as well as the properties or characteristics of these concepts and their dimensions (101). These concepts are the “building blocks of theory” and come from the data—not previous theory. The concepts form Categories that stand for phenomena. Axial Coding involves “the process of relating categories to their subcategories” and “linking categories at the level of properties and dimensions” (123). As relationships are determined, the researcher identifies structures and processes. Selective Coding involves the “process of integrating and refining theory” (143). In this coding process, the researcher makes repeated passes through the data to emerge at theory.

Constant Comparative Analysis
The development of concepts occurs through constant comparative analysis with additional data. As Ian Dey summarizes, “Categories (or codes) are to be generated by comparing one incident with another and then by comparing new incidents with emergent categories” (7). The making of constant comparisons (even allowing as Strauss and Corbin do in their version of Grounded Theory for the interplay of data and theory) is a central, “constitutive” feature of this methodology.

Theoretical Sampling
Grounded Theory does not require predetermined and controlled sampling as theory verification methodologies do. Instead, the methodology promotes inquiry wherever the inquiry leads in the service of developing theory. As Glazer and Strauss define it, “Theoretical sampling is the process of data collection for generating theory whereby the analyst jointly collects, codes, and analyzes his data and decides what data to collect next and where to find them, in order to develop his theory as it emerges. This process is controlled by the emerging theory” (45). The researcher continues to analyze different “slices of data” based upon this theoretical sampling until they reach “saturation” of their categories.

Appropriateness of Methods
As we can see, Grounded Theory is a highly interpretive process that involves a constant dialectic between concrete data and interpretive insights, trying as best it can to harmonize the conceptual theory in developmental with the specific phenomena of study. It is this quest for harmony in its results that distinguishes Grounded Theory. In the same way that user-centered design with its iterative development process creates better products by trying to make products more useable for users, so the iterative coding process of Grounded Theory through this constant grounding of theory with data enables the development of better theory. Although other methods exist for generating theory (for example by hypothesizing and seeking to reject or confirm this hypothesis either through experimental methods or qualitative methods), Grounded Theory is the most appropriate methodology for generating theory because it is expressly designed for this purpose and an extensive literature exists to assist researchers in pursing its methods. In this way, Grounded Theory as my method for pursing my inquiry harmonizes with my research question and purpose.

Grounded Theory also is an appropriate method specifically for studying writing. Writing as a social phenomena, as a situated activity, and as a process fits as a research subject typically handled by Grounded Theory researchers.

Application of These Methods/Instigating Rigor—the Rhetorical Enactment of Study
For me, any application of a research method should be done in a rigorous way. As an archival research study of reflective texts contained in a large database of writing, my sample presents limitations, challenges, and opportunities for how I will apply the methods of Grounded Theory and enact my study.

Limitations:
Grounded Theory appears to be a methodology open to almost any data and form of sampling. Since, however, it studies social phenomena predominantly, it tends to employ qualitative methods of field observation, interviews, focus groups, or textual analysis. It particularly likes to sample data from a variety of contexts to assist in constant comparative analysis. My study, however, will be limited to the textual analysis of subjects from one general context. These limitations could be seen as severe flaws in the enactment of my effort to generate theory.

These are the key questions:
--Does only a textual perspective on this phenomena of study provide too narrow a view into this social setting and action?
--Does limiting the sampling to one group and one setting restrict the free range needed for theoretical sampling and constant comparative analysis?

In answer to the first question, I would say I don't absolutely know the answer. For rigor in the enactment of this archival study, I will need to make a full disclosure of the how this theory was generated so that readers may judge its validity on those merits.

The answer to the second question is a bit easier. Grounded Theory already allows a process of developing theory first in a homogeneous environment. Glazer and Strauss believe the initial establishment of categories and properties are best developed by “minimizing” differences among comparison groups (55). Only after these categories and properties are established within this relatively homogeneous group should the researcher seek to “maximize” the differences among comparative groups to further refine and develop the theory. My study, then, should be clearly presented as developing this first step in generating theory and will provide a clear starting point for continued grounded theory development among different comparison groups.

Challenges:
The actual practice of doing grounded theory analysis appears to be difficult. In particular, the edict to let the data speak and not preconceived theory or expectations of what we want to see in the data presents a large challenge to me since I am so steeped in the theory. To mitigate being “tainted” by theory, I will need to learn the process of coding and be reflexive in how theory is entering into my analysis.

The second challenge has to do with how to conduct a pilot study. I still have ringing in my ears the maxim that “If you don't do a pilot study, then your study is a pilot.” Grounded Theory, however, seems to resist doing a pilot study since it believes in simultaneous sampling and analysis. With Grounded Theory it is like there is no practice match; you are playing for real the minute you begin. Since Grounded Theory operates on the notion of analyzing “slices of data” and constant comparison among groups of data, I believe I could consider my first batch of data to be like a pilot study. It will be important for me after this initial analysis of the first slice of data to evaluate my procedures for conducting grounded theory analysis to identify any needed adjustments.

The last challenge I face in the enactment of my study is the fact that my sample is text contained in a database. My understanding of how a database is structured and operates will influence the options I conceive for following theoretical sampling within this data set. It will be important, then, for me to gain this understanding of the TOPIC database and researching within a database.

Opportunities
The limitation of my sampling to archival texts held within the TOPIC database offers immense possibilities and offsets the limitations of the study to only textual analysis. The vast number and range of texts available in the database is rare for any study of writing. Since the data resides within a database, many different ways to slice the data exist. These two facts open new vistas for theoretical sampling. I could pull a slice of data of new students in 1301 and then compare that data to students at the end of 1302. I could pull data from just women, or just students who fail a writing assignment. The database also contains complete sets of entire writing cycles from drafts, to peer response, to document instructor feedback, to writing reviews, to final grades and assessment. In addition, since all the data is within the database I may be able to do some theoretical sampling using data-mining techniques. The vast opportunities available since the data is in the TOPIC database offer the prospect of reaching “theoretical saturation”--the end point of Grounded Theory research.

What Kinds of Knowledge Will Be Produced and How Might It Impact the Field
The “knowledge” my research study will produce will be a theory. But how do we judge a theory? What kind of knowledge does it offer? And how does theory relate to practice?

Glaser and Strauss state two criteria for the generation of theory. The theory generated must “fit” the situation and “work” when put to use: “By 'fit' we mean that the categories must be readily (not forcibly) applicable to and indicated by the data under study; by 'work' we mean that they must be meaningfully relevant to and be able to explain the behavior under study” (3). Put in other words, the theory must be true and able to communicate a meaningful understanding of the system of study. For my study, the theory of rhetorical reflection will provide a meaningful description of what happens when student reflect in this way. It will offer significant dynamics, structures, and processes that seem to be at work among the various elements of the system. But it won't offer a static machine-like model. The theory should offer a way to describe how and why rhetorical reflection works or doesn't work. Most of all, it should offer an entry point and navigation points for teachers to construct their own teaching practice for using rhetorical reflection.

Louise Wetherbee Phelps in the last chapter of her book Composition As A Human Science investigates in depth the nature of Theory and its relationship to Practice. She sees a reciprocal, dialectic relationship between Theory and Practice such that each supports the other. Neither does Theory dictate practice, nor does practice ignore Theory as irrelevant: “Theory, disciplined by our own freedom to reflect and to experience, is for composition praxis an enabling fiction” (241). Thus, the knowledge I hope my study creates will be an enabling fiction that assists teachers in inventing their own reflective practice using rhetorical reflection in their specific teaching context.

The implications of my Theory for Composition Studies can be understood by examining another quote from the same chapter by Phelps: “But teachers do not simply enact Theory, they also offer it to students directly as text, comment, or tool, so that students may appropriate it to organize their discourse practices and learning processes” (234). My theory of rhetorical reflection, I hope, will influence student learning and practice. Composition Studies seeks as its highest goal to cultivate not a mere “literate practice,” but a “rhetorical sensitivity” and meta-awareness within “literate acts” (Flower, Petraglia). Rhetorical reflection, as a pedagogically strategic activity, aims to foster this reflective practice in our student writers, and that is why this study will have value for the field.

Works Cited
Anson, Chris M. "Closed Systems and Standardized Writing Tests." College Composition and Communication 60.1 (2008): 113-28.
Dewey, John. How We Think. Boston: DC Heath, 1933.
Dey, Ian. Grounding Grounded Theory: Guidelines for Qualitative Inquiry. San Diego: Academic Press, 1999.
Fleckenstein, Kristie S., Clay Spinuzzi, Rebecca J. Rickly, and Carole Clark Papper. "The Importance of Harmony: An Ecological Metaphor for Writing Research." College Composition and Communication 60.2 (2008): 388-419.
Flower, Linda. The Construction of Negotiated Meaning: A Social Cognitive Theory of Writing. Carbondale: Southern Illinois Press, 1994.
Glaser, Barney G., and Anselm L. Strauss. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1967.
Hayes, John R. "A New Framework for Understanding Cognition and Affect in Writing." The Science of Writing: Theories, Methods, Individual Differences, and Applications. Eds. C. Michael Levy and Sarah Ransdell. Mahwah: Lawrence Erbaum Associates, 1996.
Moon, Jennifer A. Reflection in Learning & Professional Development. London: Kogan Page, 1999.
Petraglia, Joseph. “Is There Life After Process? The Role of Social Scientism in a Changing Discipline.” Post-Process Theory: Beyond the Writing-Process Paradigm. Ed. Thomas Kent. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press: 1999. 49-64.
Phelps, Louise Wetherbee. Composition as a Human Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988.
Spinuzzi, Clay. Tracing Genres through Organizations: A Sociocultural Approach to Information Design. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2003.
Stauss, Anselm, and Juliet Corbin. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 1998.

Rhetorical Reflection's Place in the Writing Curriculum to Promote Knowledge Transfer

2009-01-14T05:26:00.004-06:00

In terms of student learning, rhetorical reflection has three main values which warrant its prominent place in any writing curriculum: 1) it helps guide more effective practice for student writers within particular writing situations; 2) it serves as a way for students to derive what Kathleen Yancey calls “prototypical models” that they can transfer to new communication contexts (50); and 3) it helps develop students' rhetorical sensitivity and practical judgment and their ability to flexibly and appropriately apply what they know in different situations (what I will eventually call their “reflective practice”). When we ask what a student learns in a writing class, what “knowledge” they carry with them into the next class or the next writing context they face, I believe all three of the roles of reflection are interlinked as we help students generalize productively from their learning experience.

Two questions need to be examined before we elaborate on reflection's place in the writing curriculum: First we need an understanding of what it means to write. What is writing? Second, we need to define what kind of knowledge we teach? With these two conceptions in mind about the nature of writing and the knowledge about the writing act we need to teach, we can then discuss reflection's role in learning to write.

The grammatical form of the word “writing” as a gerund contains the paradox in what it means to write: writing operates as both a noun and a verb. This paradox of writing was discussed at length by classical rhetoricians as the debate between viewing rhetoric as a subject (or science) and viewing rhetoric as an art (or faculty). As a subject, writing involves knowledge of and control of the sign system of language—referred to in writing rubrics as grammar and mechanics (things like spelling, word form, punctuation, capitalization). In addition, writing as a subject involves what we might call conventions of discourse. The most conventional form of writing in Composition is the enduring five paragraph essay, or at least the concept of the thesis-support essay structure built around the unified paragraph invented by Alexander Bain in the mid-19th century (Halasek 146-154). As an art, writing means acknowledging the full complexity of the writing act as well as the flexible and appropriate application of the “rules” of writing as a subject within particular writing situations. The best metaphor that describes the act of writing is the notion of “rhetorical stance” which describes the complex process of finding, defining, checking, and altering all the various elements of the writing situation: what we mean vs. what we say, the situation, the occasion, the constraints of the particular task (or task schema) , the materiality of writing and process of production, genre, the audience, and purpose (Bereiter and Scarmadalia, Bitzer, Kinneavy, Flower and Hayes, Bawarshi, Ede and Lundsford). Helen Foster's map of “networked subjectivity” provides a compelling conceptual model of all the complexities writers face when they write:

Figure 1: Networked Subjectivity (Foster 113)

As Foster states, “The map attempts to indicate that multiple subjectivities, epistemologies, and literacies are part and parcel of networked subjectivity; the subject and its relation to the networked world, including the classroom and the practices of teaching writing, is shot through and through with discursive relations” (114). Flower and Hayes' 1981 model of the writing process (as well as Hayes' 1996 revision of that model) are two other models of the elements of the writing act. Each of these models of the activity of writing indicate that the act of writing involves a complex managing of multiple factors and constraints.

When we ask what we should teach in a writing class and what knowledge students should learn, I believe we need to teach not just what Linda Flower calls “limited literacy” but “literate acts” (Construction 1-35). Limited literacy narrows the range of the writing situation and privileges rules, correctness, and formal (or surface) features of writing. In Flower's call for teaching “literate acts” we see the exact complaints classical rhetoricians had against those teachers of rhetoric who would reduce it to a science and a form of techne. Isocrates in “Against the Sophists” complains that the sophists taught oratory as if they were teaching the alphabet: “But I marvel when I observe these men setting themselves up as instruments of youth who cannot see that they are applying the analogy of an art [science] with hard and fast rules to a creative process” (73). Similarly Aristotle states, “But the more we try to make either dialectic or rhetoric not, what they really are, practical faculties, but sciences, the more we shall inadvertently be destroying their true nature” (187). When critics like Sharon Crowley and Kathleen Welch condemn “composition” and “current-traditional” practice as teaching such a narrow form of writing as to become “anti-writing” (Crowley 149) and when post-process critics like Kent, Petraglia, Olson, Coultre, and Dobrin (and others) critique writing process pedagogy as teaching a Theory of Writing that is reductive, false, and even unethical, we hear the same critiques made by classical rhetoricians and in the call Flower makes for teaching “literate acts” rather than “limited literacy.”

But what are “literate acts” and the practical faculty they employ? A literate act as Flower defines it “is an individual constructive act that does not merely invoke or participate in a literate practice but embeds such practice and conventions within a personally meaningful, goal-directed use of literacy” (Construction 18). She identifies literacy as a move within a “discourse practice” and claims writers through these moves engage “in a transaction with text that is guided (more or less) by a flexible social script for how such things are normally done” (20). Contrary to post-process scholars who would claim that the activity of writing is totally indeterminate and interpretive and would thus “let go the curriculum” claiming writing is unteachable (Breuch 99, 118), Flower states that “becoming literate depends upon knowledge of social conventions … and learning distinctive ways of thinking grounded in the social purpose of the practice” (22, 23). It also involves problem-solving: “By problem-solving, I mean the intellectual moves that allow people to construct meaning—to interpret the situation; to organize, select, and connect information; to draw inferences, set goals, get the gist, respond to prior texts, draw on past experience, imagine options, and carry on intentions” (24). Ann Berthoff makes a similar point when she claims writing as a form of making meaning is not just a verbal behavior (skill) but an activity that “involves the writer in making choices all along the way” (22). Flower's emphasis on literate acts interweaving knowledge of conventions as well as situated cognition complements the point Anis Bawashi makes in her 2003 book on the role of genre and invention in writing: “By encouraging student writers to recognize beginnings as genred positions of articulation, and by teaching students how to inquire into these positions, we enable them to locate themselves more critically and effectively as writers within these beginnings” (170). Thus, we have the creative tension implicit in the nature of writing as being both a subject and an activity; as being a genred act of articulation and an individual act of meaning-making; and as being a body of general concepts, theories, and rules and the flexible application of those general theories in particular contexts. The “knowledge” we must teach as writing teachers is how to critically understand and manage this creative tension implicit in what it means to engage in a literate act.

In summary, reflection as a pedagogical activity within a writing curriculum is a strategic activity that helps writers engage in and problem-solve within literate acts. Reflection also serves as an opportunity for students to construct their understanding (create what Donna Qualley calls “earned insights”) and debrief their learning experience. These two views of reflection match my own description of the two frameworks for reflection in composition: rhetorical reflection and curricular reflection. Since my focus of inquiry is on rhetorical reflection, I will center my discussion on “knowledge” not as a discrete skill or form of knowledge that is retrospectively constructed, but as a capacity or awareness flexibly applied within various writing situations that will enable the writer to write more effectively. As a kind of knowledge Schon would call “reflection-in-action,” this cognitive flexibility resembles the classical notion of phronesis, or the application of practical wisdom and judgment in uncertain or “indeterminate zones or practice” (Schon Educating 6). This “critical knowing” (Pearson and Smith 74) or “meta-awareness about writing, language, and rhetorical strategies” (Wardle qtd. in Anson 124) I will label as “reflective practice” (following Schon). To carry this reflective practice into another writing situation I will call “reflexive transfer.”

It is now my job to describe a composition pedagogy that encourages “reflective practice” and promotes “reflexive transfer.” Such a pedagogy involves two steps: first students must be engaged in writing tasks that call on them to exercise this reflective practice, and second “reflexive transfer” is promoted through reflecting on their reflective practice.

A writing pedagogy that promotes reflective practice, I believe, must be thoroughly rhetorical. I conceived my own framework for such a composition course in a paper I wrote entitled, “Open Spaces: A Heuristic Toward a New Composition.” My own discussion of this pedagogy will draw on ideas and a few excerpts from this paper. Sharon Crowley outlines the nature of the rhetorical principles that form the foundation for this pedagogy:

"rhetoric pays close attention to the given audience, occasion, and social or political situation that has prompted a rhetor to compose and deliver a discourse" (166)
and
"rhetoric tends to prefer a more holistic picture of human motivation than has been traditionally congenial to philosophy" (166-167). [In other words, beyond appeals to reason, rhetoric is open to ethos, pathos, and knowledge built from common places.]
and
"rhetoricians tend to view language as something other than a simple medium of representation. … Language is not always a subservient instrument of thought or reason; indeed, it may shape both" (167).

Such a rhetorical pedagogy engages students in literate acts, calling on them to problem-solve and engage in reflective practice. I identified five heuristics or “spaces” in which teachers could position their students that I believed would call on them to act rhetorically and invent new practice. Only through significant rhetorical experiences which call on students to be reflective practitioners do they begin to learn reflective practice.

The five spaces or heuristics are as follows:
1)Open Genre/New Literacy
—Students are asked to write different kinds of genres that involve them in a variety of writing situations. In particular, I felt that writing teachers should engage students in writing multi-modal, new media forms of discourse because of our changing literacy landscape.

2)The Rhetorical Forum
--The rhetorical forum is a recurring location for communication and argument (Farrell “Practicing” 89). It is a social setting where students must take audience into account and learn that writing is a “two-sided act” (Bakhtin 1215) as well as a performance (Welch).

3)Real Writing
--It is important for student writers to write for real (not practice) writing situations and audiences. In this way, students have more significant experiences with occasion, audience, and purpose than for a classroom-bound only writing assignment. It draws them into the real complexities of writing and thus positions them to experience reflective practice more fully.

4)Collaborative Writing
--Co-creating a text calls on students to think about writing and the production of a text in different ways. Besides providing a broader perspective on the writing situation, collaborative writing also leads students to interrogate the choices they make in writing in more significant ways since the group has to negotiate these choices.

5)Civic Rhetoric
--Having students write about issues of public concern returns Composition to its roots in classical rhetoric and involves students in the role of rhetoric for building a civil society. An important part of having students engage in civic rhetoric should be the study of the way language works for communal good and bad—the ethical dimensions of all discourse.

I will briefly describe two assignments that enact this “New Composition,” and then discuss examples of how reflection plays a role in assisting and creating reflective practice.
The first assignment, used in my Freshman Composition I class last Fall, is entitled “What Really Matters for Election 2008.” Students were asked to profile a person of voting age about what single issue or concern most mattered to them in this 2008 election. These profiles were posted into a “rhetorical forum” I created for the San Antonio College community called “Decision2008atSAC.” The overall purpose of the student writing in this site was to help members of the SAC community become better informed voters. I won't belabor the may ways in which this assignment enacts New Composition in the interest of space (and since my focus will be on reflection within this pedagogical situation.

The second assignment is one I have done a number of times with my online Developmental English II students. I discovered while teaching this class that most of my students had a common story that went something like this: I struggled in and even hated high school. I did poorly, had major problems, made bad decisions, and blew my chance to go to college. But here I am years later, older, wiser, and with a fire in my belly to get my education. I found these stories extremely compelling, and I felt like current high school students needed to hear them. This assignment, then, was designed to give them that chance. This statement from the assignment expresses what the topic was: “Your purpose is to communicate some important truth or principle that you now understand (but that you ignored or didn't understand in high school) and persuade them that it is true or something they should do or adopt.” These essays were then posted on a website (a wiki) entitled “College4U.” As with the previous assignment, I won't elaborate ways this assignment asks students to engage in a literate act and use reflective practice.

The goal of rhetorical reflection in this pedagogical situation is to enter students into a discursive space where they can engage in reflective practice. A look at four different theoretical models of the method or sequence of reflection reveals a general pattern which rhetorical reflection can adopt:

John Dewey's
Steps of “Reflective Thinking”
(i) a felt difficulty
(ii) its location and definition
(iii) suggestion of possible solutions
(iv) development by reasoning of the bearings of the suggestion
(v) further observation and experiment leading to its acceptance or reflection; that is the conclusion of belief or disbelief
(72)

Donald Schon's Structure of Reflection in Action
1) problem
2) attempt at “problem setting/framing”
3) failure to solve the problem
4) reframing of the problem/situation
5) conduct experiment to discover consequences and implications

--appreciation
--action
--reappreciation
(Schon The Reflective Practitioner 128-132)

Kathleen Yancey's Synthesis of Schon's Method of Reflection
To theorize our own practice through reflection--
1) know it [practice]
2) review it
3) discern patterns in it
4) project appropriately from these patterns
5) use projections to hypothesize a new way of thinking about the situations
(12)

David Boud et. al
Three Phases of Reflective Process (from Experiential Learning)
1) Return to experience

2) Attend to feelings

3) Re-evaluate experience

David Grimmett's
Three Conceptions of Reflection in Teacher Education
1) thoughtfulness about action

2) deliberation and choice among competing actions

3) reflection as restructuring experience
(12)

From these different models, we can develop a general template for prompting rhetorical reflection between drafts. These prompts would contain this sequence:
1.Description—where are you, what have you done, how are you feeling
2.Attending to feelings—what feelings or impressions do you have at this point
3.Identify Problems—problem setting/problem framing, exploring difficulties and what may not be working (especially dealing with establishing aligned rhetorical stance)
4.Consider Options—suggest courses of action to solve the problem
5.Future Direction—decide what will you do, why you will do it, and expected outcome

I want to emphasize that this sequence is a general template; each particular prompt for rhetorical reflection should be customized to the essay assignment and to where students are within the writing cycle. However, this general sequence provides a framework for prompting reflective practice.

Prompts for rhetorical reflection should also encourage what Dewey called the “double movement of reflection.” This double movement is a form of dialectical thinking he describes this way: “[It is] a movement from the given partial and confused data to a suggested comprehension (or inclusive) entire situation; and back from this suggested whole... to the particular facts” (79). He names these movements as inductive and deductive thinking, “the movement toward the suggestion or hypothesis and the movement back to facts” (81). This dialectic movement of reflective thinking is a fundamental dynamic within reflection. Bereiter and Scarmadalia conceived a “dual-problem space model of reflective processes in written composition” where reflection is a dialogue between the Content Space (What do I mean?) and the Rhetorical Space (What do I say?): “The key requirement for reflective thought in writing, according to this model, is the translation of problems encountered in the rhetorical space back into subgoals to be achieved in the content space” (303). A similar back and forth process can be seen in L. McAlpine et. al's “Metacognitive Model of Reflection.” In their model reflection is seen as an iterative process and ongoing conversation: “Specifically, reflection is visualized as continuous interaction between the two inter-related components of action and knowledge” (107). Kathleen Yancey's description of the reflective process offers one more example of this double-movement in reflective thought: “When we reflect, we thus project and review, often putting the projections and the reviews in dialogue with each other, working dialectically as we seek to discover what we know, what we have learned, and what we might understand” (6). It is important within prompts for reflection that we design them to initiate this dialectical thinking.
So far I have described two key parts of developing a writing curriculum that implements rhetorical reflection: first, designing a curriculum that engages students within rhetorical situations and literate acts so that they are more readily drawn into reflective practice; and second, designing the reflective prompts between drafts to engage students into rhetorical reflection in order to critically understand and problem-solve within their reflective practice.

Two other questions remain regarding reflection and transfer:
How do you design a curriculum that encourages “reflexive transfer” (the transfer of the ability for reflective practice in new writing situations)?
How do you measure whether these efforts are effective?

In order to encourage “reflexive transfer,” we must provide opportunities for students to reflect upon and process their reflective practice. That is, we must ask them to reflect upon not just what they learned, but upon their rhetorical action—the moves, choices, and decisions they made and strategies they employed. Linda Flower believes the essence of transfer is “the ability to use old knowledge in new settings” (290). Learning and the knowledge we may gain from experience, however, are entwined within context. For transfer to happen, these contexts must be tapped into: “effective transfer of knowledge is possible when people recognize—actually attend to the fact—that features of this situation fit prior situations, and as a result they adapt old knowledge and strategies to fit these new contexts” (290). When Yancey discusses the main goal of “Constructive Reflection” after a writing cycle to be the development of “prototypical models,” it is important that these reflections embed these models within the context out of which they came. We must get students to answer questions like: Why because of this particular situation were these problems encountered and these solutions most appropriate? As students begin a writing task, we need to ask them to reflect critically on the task and locate it in reference to past reflective practice. In this way, we don't promote the notion of a formula for writing but a tool box of adaptive sets of goals, strategies and problem-solving techniques to fit each particular writing situation.

If we design reflection to encourage “reflective practice” and the “reflexive transfer” of that practice as I have been discussing, how would we measure its effectiveness? The task of such measurement is complex, and I can't say that I have an answer for it. The task is complicated by the fact that reflective thinking is not just a discursive act—people also think internally and talk about their writing task in reflective ways. Also, there is often a wide gap between what we can think and conceive and what we are able to do. A deep understanding of the rhetorical complexity of a writing situation and what needs to be done to meet it does not mean a student writer is able to. Developmental factors as well as previous knowledge and experience come into play too.

To measure “reflexive transfer” would seem to involve a matter of multiple evaluations—each of which is problematic:
Step #1: Develop a baseline of reflective practice level
1.measure the level of rhetorical reflection
2.measure if level of awareness of and engagement in reflective practice transferred into important action within the writing cycle
3.measure the “prototypical models” for practice derived by the student
The end point would be a measure of the students ability at reflective practice on a scale

Step #2: Measure the student's reflective practice in another writing context
1.measure the level of rhetorical reflection
2.measure the level of awareness of and engagement in reflective practice transferred into important action within the writing cycle—And what understandings and strategies of reflective practice are brought into this writing experience from a previous one
3.measure the “prototypical models” for practice derived by the student—And how these these models connect to models from previous writing experiences
The end point would be both a second measure of the students ability at reflective practice to compare to the first measure, and a measure of reflexive transfer.

To be honest, this form of assessment would be incredibly hard to create and administer and fraught with inaccuracy. Theoretically, we can believe that reflection can promote transfer, but checking that this transfer happens encounters the same problems that checking to see if reflection promotes better practice within writing situations. Perhaps a Grounded Theory research study on reflexive transfer could reveal the dynamics at work.

Works Cited
Anson, Chris M. "Closed Systems and Standardized Writing Tests." College Composition and Communication 60.1 (2008): 113-28.
Aristotle. "Rhetoric." The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present (2001): 179-240 pp.
Bakhtin, Mikhail. Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present. 2nd ed. Ed. Patricial Bizzell and Bruce Herzberg. Boston: Bedford's/St. Martin's, 2001. 1210-1226.
Bawarshi, Anis. Genre & the Invention of the Writer: Reconsidering the Place of Invention in Composition. Logan: Utah State University Press, 2003.
Bereiter, Carl and Marlene Scardamalia. The Psychology of Written Composition. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1987.
Berthoff, Ann E. The Making of Meaning: Metaphors, Models, and Maxims for Writing Teachers. Montclair: Boynton/Cook Publishers Inc., 1981.
Bitzer, Lloyd. "The Rhetorical Situation." Philosophy and Rhetoric (1968): 1-14.
Boud, David, Rosemary Keogh, and David Walker. "Promoting Reflection in Learning: a Model." Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning. New York: Kogan Page, 1985. 18-40.
Couture, Barbara. "Modeling and Emulating: Rethinking Agency in the Writing Process." Post-Process Theory: Beyond the Writing-Process Paradigm. Ed. Thomas Kent. 2nd ed. Carbondale: Southern Illonois UP, 1999. 30-48.
Crowley, Sharon. Methodological Memory: Invention in Current Traditional Rhetoric. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois UP, 1990.
Crowley, Sharon. Methodological Memory: Invention in Current Traditional Rhetoric. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois UP, 1990.
Dewey, John. How We Think. Boston: DC Heath, 1933.
Dobrin, Sidney I. "Paralogic Hermeneutic Theories, Power and the Possibilities for Liberating Pedagogies." Post-Process Theory: Beyond the Writing-Process Paradigm. Ed. Thomas Kent. 2nd ed. vols. Carbondale: Southern Illinois Up, 1999. 132-48.
Ede, Lisa, and Andrea Lunsford. "Audience Addressed/ Audience Invoked: The Role of Audience in Composition Theory and Pedagogy." The Writing Teacher's Sourcebook. Eds. Gary Tate, Edward P.J. Corbett and Nancy Myers. 3rd ed. vols. New York Oxford, 1994. 243-57.
Farrell, James. "Practicing the Arts of Rhetoric: Tradition and Invention." Contemporary Rhetorical Theory. Eds. John Louis Lucaites, Celeste Michelle Condit and Sally Caudill. New York: The Guildord Press, 1999. 79-100.
Flower, Linda and John R. Hayes. "A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing." College Composition and Communication 32 (1981): 365-87.
Flower, Linda. The Construction of Negotiated Meaning: A Social Cognitive Theory of Writing. Carbondale: Southern Illinois Press, 1994.
Foster, Helen. Networked Process: Dissolving Boundaries of Process and Post-Process. West Lafayette: Parlor Press, 2007.
Grimmett, P. Peter. "The Nature of Reflection and Schon's Conception of Perspective." Reflection in Teacher Education. Ed. Peter P. Grimmett and Gaalen L. Erickson. New York: Teachers College Press, 1988. 3-16.
Halasek, Kay. A Pedagogy of Possibility: Bakhtinian Perspectives on Composition Studies. Carbondale: Southern Illinois Press, 1999.
Hayes, John R. "A New Framework for Understanding Cognition and Affect in Writing." The Science of Writing: Theories, Methods, Individual Differences, and Applications. Eds. C. Michael Levy and Sarah Ransdell. vols. Mahwah: Lawrence Erbaum Associates, 1996.
Isocrates. "Against the Sophists." The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present. Eds. Patricia Bizzell and Bruce Herzberg. 2nd ed. Boston: Bedford's/ St. Martings, 2001. 72-74.
Kastman Breuch, Lee-Ann. "Post-Process 'Pedagogy': A Philosophical Exercise." Ed. Victor Villanueva. Cross-Talk in Comp Theory: A Reader. 2nd ed. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 2003. 97- 126.
Kent, Thomas. Post-Process Theory: Beyond the Writing Process Paradigm. Carbondale: Southern Illinois Press, 1999.
Kinneavy, James L. A Theory of Discourse. New York: Norton, 1971.
McAlpine, L., et al. "Building a Metacognitive Model of Reflection." Higher Education 37 (1999): 105-31.
Pearson, Margot, and David Smith. "Debriefing in Experience-based Learning." Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning. Eds. David Boud, Rosemary Keogh, and David Walker. London: Kogan Page, 1985. 69-84.
Petraglia, Joseph. “Is There Life After Process? The Role of Social Scientism in a Changing Discipline.” Post-Process Theory: Beyond the Writing-Process Paradigm. Ed. Thomas Kent. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press: 1999. 49-64.
Phelps, Louise Wetherbee. Composition as a Human Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988.
Qualley, Donna. Turns of Thought: Teaching Composition as Reflexive Inquiry. Portsmouth: Boynton/Cook, 1997.
Schon, Donald A. Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1987.
---. The Reflective Practitioner. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass, 1983.
Welch, Kathleen. The Contemporary Reception of Classical Rhetoric: Appropriations of Ancient Discourse. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., 1990.
Yancy, Kathleen Blake. Reflection in the Writing Classroom. Logan: Utah State University Press, 1998.

The Nature of Rhetorical Reflection

2009-01-14T05:11:00.004-06:00

Invention as Janice Lauer defines it concerns “strategic acts that provide the discourser with direction, multiple ideas, subject matter, arguments, insights or probably judgments, and understanding of the rhetorical situation” (2). “Rhetorical reflection” is just such a “strategic act” that extends the concerns of invention throughout the activity of writing, helping writers achieve an appropriate and effective rhetorical stance. In this discussion, I will define rhetorical reflection and outline its relevant links to rhetoric and invention, then discuss the significance of rhetorical reflection as a concept and pedagogical activity within the field of Rhetoric and Composition.

Rhetorical reflection, as I define it, represents a teacher-prompted activity that occurs within the activity or writing for the purpose of validity testing or problem-solving. Following Linda Flower's paradigm of writer-based/reader-based prose, rhetorical reflection is written for the writer's own purposes and with herself in mind as audience. Typically, these acts of reflection come between the drafts, after peer feedback and before revision begins. This chart of the “Writing Feedback Loop” illustrates the pedagogical location of rhetorical reflection within a teacher-guided sequence of the writing process:
Figure 1: The Writing Feedback Loop and Kolb's Experiential Learning Cycle

This sequencing of the writing process follows David Kolb's Experiential Learning Cycle closely, where “reflective observation” on experience leads to “abstract conceptualization” that leads to “active experimentation” in another (and presumably improved) attempt at the experience, which then leads to a repeat of the cycle. This “looping” describes the multi-draft sequence of the writing-feedback loop and the significant role peer response and rhetorical reflection have in helping students formulate critical perspective and insight into their own text and process so as to assist them in revising and completing the writing assignment more successfully. Rhetorical reflection contrasts with what I call “curricular reflection” which is done post-task rather than in-task and predominantly for constructivist purposes and assessment. The portfolio letter represents the most typical kind of curricular reflection. As Richard Haswell notes, these kinds of student self-evaluations “both measure and allow learning” (98). It asks students to demonstrate their learning even as they construct it. Since this kind of reflection is done once the task is completed, it does not involve the same kind of problem-solving as the strategizing done in rhetorical reflection in the midst of a writing task. Jennifer Moon calls this kind of reflection where no new learning material is involved “cognitive housekeeping” that involves a “re-ordering of thought” (90).

Figure 2: The Three Poles of Reflection's

The diagram of the three poles of reflection chart out these two different frameworks for reflection typically used in Composition. Curricular reflection, then, has the predominant purpose of promoting learning, while rhetorical reflection is chiefly characterized by judgment.
An examination of Donald's Schon's thinking on “reflective practice” reveals further features of “rhetorical reflection” and why this kind of reflection can be closely connected to rhetoric and invention. Kathleen Blake Yancey and Joel English are two of the most prominent scholars in Composition who have directly brought Schon's ideas into the field of Composition. Yancey in her book Reflection in the Writing Classroom introduces Schon's concepts by describing his views on knowledge: “In explaining his epistemology, Schon begins by distinguishing between two kinds of knowing: that of the technical realm and that of the non-technical realm. The world of technical rationality, Schon says, allows for a knowing by way of causal inference that is controlled. … The second world is … where causal inference is a judgment call, no matter how well informed” (12-13). Within Schon's two competing views of epistemology, we see the same competing views about truth and rhetoric's role that go back to the sophists, and through Schon's conception of “reflective practice” we can make direct connections to “rhetorical practice.”

In Schon's 1983 The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, he describes the crisis in professional practice as a mismatch between then current methods for guiding practice and real life practice situations. He labels the culprit as “the model of Technical Rationality”: “According to the model of Technical Rationality … professional activity consists in instrumental problem solving made rigorous by the application of scientific theory and technique” (21). He characterizes this technical rationality later as the “application of scientific theory and technique to the instrumental problems of practice” (30). The crisis Schon identifies is that this technical rationality does not always work in the messy, real world which involves “complexity, uncertainty, instability, uniqueness, and value conflict” (18). He labels these situations as “indeterminate zones of practice” (Educating 6-7). His entire thesis surrounding “reflection-in-action” and “reflection-on-action” is about applying a different kind of thinking to these indeterminate zones of practice.

Within Schon's two conflicting models of knowledge guiding practice we see the ancient conflict between philosophy and rhetoric. Stanley Fish summarizes this conflict in his essay “Rhetoric” by bringing up Richard Lanham's distinction between homo seriosus and homo rhetoricus: “In the philosopher's vision of the world, rhetoric (and representation in general) is merely the (disposable) form by which a prior and substantial content is conveyed; but in the world of homo rhetoricus rhetoric is both form and content, the manner or presentation and what is presented” (1616). When truth is already known either through logic, religion, or science, rhetoric is reduced to “mere rhetoric” and becomes a matter or arrangement and style only, leaving invention out or rhetoric's purview. In contrast, Isocrates and Aristotle define the realm of rhetoric as being exactly the indeterminate zones of practice that Schon discusses. For Aristotle, the art of rhetoric deals with things that "belong to no definite science"(1354a), "the probable" or those things that "may be one way or another" (1357a). Distinguishing the contingent from the necessary or the impossible, Aristotle determines the subject matter of the contingent to be "perishable circumstances, incomplete knowledge, and fallible human action" (Farrell Norms 78).
Schon's complaint against the model of Technical Rationality also mirrors the debate classical rhetoricians had between whether the practice of rhetoric was a science or an art. We see this same conflict in recent times in post-process thinkers who complain that writing process pedagogy and views of writing have become a form of technical rationality. Is rhetoric and composition a science where rhetorical practice is guided by “scientific” rules and generalizable truths that can be applied in any situation? In this case, rhetorical practice becomes a matter of techne. Schon's clear links to the classical view of rhetoric can be seen in his view of reflective practice as involving “artistry”: “It is rather through the non-technical process of framing the problematic situation that we may organize and clarify both the ends to be achieved and the possible means of achieving them” (The Reflective Practitioner 41). If rhetoric is as John Poulakos defines it is “the art which seeks to capture in opportune moments that which is appropriate and attempts to suggest that which is possible,” (26) rhetorical practice “enacts the norms of propriety collaboratively with interested collective others” (Farrell “Practicing” 91). This rhetorical practice, like Schon's view of reflective practice as artistry, aims “to practice judgment (to enact krisis) where certain sorts of problematic materials are concerned (Farrell “Practicing” 81). The classical term for this practical judgment (or wisdom) is phronesis which Farrell refers to as the "practical ideal of the appropriate" (81). Phronesis, Steve Schwarze points out, is crucial to the practice of rhetoric: “the relationship of phronesis and rhetoric emphasizes how rhetor, text, and audience are brought together in the enactment of practical wisdom” (“The role of display in phronesis”). As Kathleen Yancey states after a summary of Schon's views on reflection, “reflection is rhetorical” (12).

Rhetorical reflection, then, relates to invention because as a form of phronesis it seeks to discover what is appropriate within uncertain and particular situations. This quest for the appropriate in writing has been referred to by Wayne Booth as “rhetorical stance”:
Rhetorical stance is] a stance which depends on discovering and maintaining in any writing situation a proper balance among the three elements that are at work in any communicative effort: the available arguments about the subject itself, the interests and peculiarities of the audience, and the voice, the implied character, of the speaker. I should like to suggest that it is this balance, this rhetorical stance, difficult as it is to describe, that is our main goal as teachers of rhetoric. (141)

As Richard Young, Alton Becker and Kenneth Pike state in Rhetoric: Discovery and Change, “invention involves a process of orientation rather than origination” (qtd. in Bawarshi 6). Rhetorical stance is a conceptual metaphor that communicates the spacial sense of orienting toward and aligning the various elements and complexity of the writing situation (or we might say the writing ecology).

Figure 3: Elements of Rhetorical Stance

If we presume that writing is epistemic and a form of inquiry (Odell 1980, Hillocks 1982), then the concerns of invention persist throughout the writing process, not just the “pre-writing” phase of composing. Rhetorical reflection, as a teacher-prompted activity, like invention is a heuristic activity designed to guide a student writers' inquiry into establishing their rhetorical stance. If we see the activity of writing as a goal-directed, problem-solving activity as Flowers and Hayes do, then rhetorical reflection is a discursive space where student writers can define and seek (invent) solutions to problems and felt difficulties they encounter within their process of drafting a paper. It is where students can practice what Dewey defined as “reflective thinking”: “Active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it, and the further conclusions to which it tends” (6). It is where students get to practice the phronetic art of rhetoric.

The significance of rhetorical reflection to recent perspectives on pedagogy in Rhetoric and Composition can be seen in recent calls by scholars and teachers to shift the focus of what we teach in Freshman Composition from a narrow “proficiency” in academic writing to a broader “rhetorical sensitivity” that can serve student writers in all instances of writing (Halasek). Donald Bartholomae, a chief proponent of teaching academic writing, imagines a composition that teaches a deeper form of criticism than our current practice: "we can imagine that the goal of writing instruction might be to teach an act of criticism that would enable a writer to interrogate his or her own text in relationship to the problems of writing and the problems of disciplinary knowledge. … as something to be learned in practice, perhaps learned at the point of practice" (17). Joseph Petraglia believes the goal of writing instruction should be the "turn away from developing rhetorical skills and toward development of rhetorical sensibilities" (62). Summing up ideas from Roderick Hart and Don Burks in the field of speech communication, Petraglia states: "the ideal rhetorical training will have at its core the development of sensitivity to the rhetorical possibilities available to students and will provide some guidance as to how they may determine to select among those possibilities" (62). Anis Bawarshi, speaking from a position of the importance of genre in writing, states a similar belief for what our goals should be in 21st century writing classrooms: “The rhetorical art of adaptation or repositioning should become central to our teaching of writing, especially our teaching of invention, which would then become the art of analyzing genres and positioning oneself within them” (156). Finally, Chris Anson in his recent CCC article on assessment cites the results of Elizabeth Wardle's research into transfer to advocate for this same kind of focus for Freshman Composition: “meta-awareness about writing language, and rhetorical strategies in FYC may be the most important ability our courses can cultivate” (qtd. in Anson 124). Rhetorical reflection, as an “effortful, interpretive, and fallible but strategic process” (Flower 268) is one teaching activity we can engage students in that will help them develop this rhetorical sensitivity and practice the art of adapting and repositioning—that is, the art of rhetorical practice.

Works Cited
Anson, Chris M. "Closed Systems and Standardized Writing Tests." College Composition and Communication 60.1 (2008): 113-28.
Aristotle. "Rhetoric." The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present (2001): 179-240.
Bartholomae, David. "What Is Composition and (If You Know What That Is) Why Do We Teach It?" Composition in the Twenty-First Century: Crisis and Change. Eds. Lynn Z. Bloom, Donald A. Daiker and Edward M. White. vols. Carbondale: Southern Illonois University Press, 1996. 11-28.
Bawarshi, Anis. Genre & the Invention of the Writer: Reconsidering the Place of Invention in Composition. Logan: Utah State University Press, 2003.
Booth, Wayne. "The Rhetorical Stance." College Composition and Communication 14.3 (1963): 139-45.
Dewey, John. How We Think. Boston: DC Heath, 1933.
English, Joel. "Moo-Based Meta-Cognition: Incorporating Reflection into the Writing Process." Kairos 3.1 (1998). .
Farrell, Thomas B. Norms of Rhetorical Culture. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1993.
---. "Practicing the Arts of Rhetoric: Tradition and Invention." Contemporary Rhetorical Theory. Eds. John Louis Lucaites, Celeste Michelle Condit and Sally` Caudill. vols. New York: The Guildord Press, 1999. 79-100.
Fish, Stanley. "Rhetoric." The Rhetorical Tradition: Reading from Classical Times to the Present. Ed. Patricia Bizzell and Bruce Herzberg. 2nd ed. Boston: St. Martin's Press, 2001. 1609-27.
Flower, Linda. "Writer-Based Prose: A Cognitive Basis for Problems in Writing." College English 41.1 (1979): 19-37.
Flower, Linda. The Contruction of Negotiated Meaning: A Social Cognitive Theory of Writing. Carbondale: Southern Illinois Press, 1994.
Halasek, Kay. A Pedagogy of Possibility: Bakhtinian Perspectives on Composition Studies. Carbondale: Southern Illinois Press, 1999.
Haswell, Richard H. "Student Self-Evaluations and Development Change." Student Self-Evaluation: Fostering Reflective Learning. Ed. Jean MacGregor. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1993. 83-100.
Hillocks, George. "Inquiry and the Composing Process: Theory and Research." College English 44.7 (1982): 659-73.
Kolb, David A. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1984.
Lauer, Janice M. Invention in Rhetoric and Composition. West Lafayette: Parlor Press, 2004.
Moon, Jennifer. A Handbook of Reflective and Experiential Learning. London: Kogan Page, 2004.
Odell, Lee. "Teaching Writing by Teaching the Process of Discovery: An Interdisciplinary Enterprise." Cognitive Process in Writing. Eds. Lee W. Gregg and Erwin R. Steinberg. vols. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1980. 139-54.
Petraglia, Joseph. “Is There Life After Process? The Role of Social Scientism in a Changing Discipline.” Post-Process Theory: Beyond the Writing-Process Paradigm. Ed. Thomas Kent. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press: 1999. 49-64.
Poulakos, John. "Toward a Sophistic Definition of Rhetoric." Contemporaty Rhetorical Theory. Ed. Celeste Condit John Lucaites, Sally Caudill. New York: The Guilford Press, 1999. 25-34.
Schon, Donald A. Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1987.
---. The Reflective Practitioner. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass, 1983.
Schwarze, Steve. "Performing Phronesis: The Case of Isocrates' Helen." Philosophy and Rhetoric 32.1 (1999): 79-96. 17 July 2006 .
Yancy, Kathleen Blake. Reflection in the Writing Classroom. Logan: Utah State University Press, 1998.

On to Quals!

2008-12-17T09:55:00.002-06:00

This semester is finally DONE! Now I can devote all my attention directly on preparation for my quals. I thought I would take a bit of time to do some initial musing and orienting toward the coming test. What I'll do here is take each "domain area" in turn and think about them out loud here.

Three Domain Areas for Exam

Reflection—Rich
Rhet/Comp (Tech Comm)—Fred
Research Methodology—Becky
*****************************************
Initial questions on the domain area of Reflection

What are the major theoretical perspectives on reflection, and how would your inquiry possibly add to this body of knowledge? --or how does your perspective differ from these other areas?

How are reflection and invention related?

What are the theoretical beliefs behind the use of reflection, and how are they complicated in actual practice in the classroom?

What is your definition of reflection (“rhetorical reflection”)? Justify why this definition is better than others?

What is different and what is the same between “reflection-in-action” (“rhetorical reflection”) and “reflection-on-action” (curricular reflection)?

Rich has hinted that his question will be something related to "rhetorical reflection." A big part of my thinking has focused on what "kind" of reflection is this rhetorical reflection. The term is my term to describe this reflection within the activity of writing, and I think for my quals prep I would do well to spend my time charting out the different kinds of reflection and then where mine fits. I still like Moon's all-purpose definition for reflection saying the mental process is similar but it is the purpose to which it is directed (its "frameworks") that distinguishes the different kinds of reflection. In Composition the term has become so focused on post-task construction of knowledge with the ultimate goal of transfer. So my goal here will be to create a kind of chart or survey of the various approaches to reflection. OK. Good.

******************
The second domain is Comp/Rhet (Tech Comm) and these are the initial questions I have:

--What are the major areas of Rhet/Comp, and how does the one your working with make connections between Technical Communication and Rhet/Comp?
--Should rhetoric be a part of Freshman Composition, and how does your focus on reflection relate to your answer to rhetoric's place in FYC?
--What are the major views on “the writer” in Rhet/Comp, and how do these perspectives relate to the possible role of reflection in the activity of writing?
--How do we describe and account for differences in approaches to teaching writing?
--Justify the notion of “writing process” and where reflection may fit into that “process?”

Of all the "domains," this is the one that worries the most. It is so open-ended. I meet with Fred today, so I hope that he can give me some guidance on where I can focus my energies. I think I would be wise to do a general review of comprehensive views on Composition from Harris, Crowley, Berlin, Fulkerson, Lindemann, and Connors (among many). I'm spooked, though, on how I will integrate my discussion with Tech Comm. I need also to examine the bridges between Comp and Tech Comm. Of all the questions I have proposed, the first one on rhetoric in composition is the one that I have focused on the most myself and would have the most I could talk about. Ultimately, I think my own conception of teaching writing as well as my use of reflection in a writing course stems from the New Rhetorical or Epistemic tradition in composition studies. I think I need to anchor myself more concretely in that tradition, but again how does this connect to Tech Comm? I should have more direction after meeting with Fred today. More to come...

**********************
The third domain is Research and Research Methodology. Here are my initial questions:

--Describe four possible research methodologies for investigating your research question (including your own), and then argue for why grounded theory is the most appropriate methodology to use?
--What are the strengths and weaknesses of grounded theory?
--What kind of knowledge will your research methodology generate?
--Compare the methods used in three different methodologies (including your own) and discuss what is different about the methods applied in grounded theory?
--Discuss the uses of grounded theory as a research methodology for the fields of Rhet/Comp and Technical Communication.

From a moo discussion I had with Alec a few weeks back (http://moo.engl.ttu.edu:7000/1608) we pretty much landed on question #1, except we narrowed it to three methodologies.
Describe three possible research methodologies for investigating your research question (including your own), and then argue for why grounded theory is the most appropriate methodology to use?

That question would integrate all the other ones pretty much. So to approach this one, I might chart out various research methodologies used in Composition and then decide on the key ones I would focus on. North will help me a lot here, but he only goes to 1985, so I would have to update the research approaches used in the last twenty years. These would include predominantly qualitative approaches I would think. Perhaps I could ask the WPA list what their thoughts are? It is interesting how methods like Case Study could be perceived differently since it had more of a positivistic or what North calls Clinical bent to it originally but now it is definitely a qualitative methodology in an of itself. I need to get that book Methods and Methodologies in Comp, but even it is dated. We need someone to write an update to North's book. I sure could use it!

So I am launched! On to quals...

The Subject in Discourse

2008-11-30T23:09:00.001-06:00

Clifford, John. "The Subject in Discourse." Contending with Words: Composition in a Postmodern Age. New York: MLA, 1991. 38-51.

I have two interests in this article. The first is in Clifford's history of "the subject" in the twentieth century; the second is Clifford's own project to transform composition pedagogy into a more "critical" practice. I'll deal mostly with the first interest since it provides additional background I need for my own understanding of the "subject who writes and who is written." [My own quotes but from somewhere?] However, Clifford's project in this essay seems so dated to me—so postmodern in its own "ideology"—that I am interested in my own reaction to this piece at this moment in 2008. But more about that in a moment.

The "subject" is a term to describe the writer's consciousness as he or she writes—their body and thoughts as they are expressed on the page. I'll be blunt about my own concern related to "the subject." If rhetorical reflection, as I suppose, represents a "reactivation" of invention within the act of writing, we HAVE to have some idea about what it means for a writer to "invent." Postmodernism basically castrated the subject, leaving invention outside the realm of "the subject." If I am to make my claim, I need to "rescue the subject" from these postmodern claims. However, I can't just return to a romantic version of the creative genius on a hero quest within their own psyche to grasp the ultimate boon. No.

But on to Clifford's 101 about the history of "the subject" in the 20th century. He actually spends little time setting the baseline of the "romantic subject." Here is his clearest description of this traditional view of "the subject":
For the traditional humanist, the writer has always been seen as a creative individual, the locus of signification, the originator or meaning, an autonomous being, aware of ends and means, of authorial intentions and motivations. Traditional and expressivist rhetorical theory, in fact, unproblematically assumes that the individual writer is free, beyond the contingencies of history and language, to be an authentic and unique consciousness. (Clifford 39)
These two sentences represent Clifford's summary of the autonomous self. I must admit I am guilty of holding this view of the writing subject because this description (to a degree) represents my experience as a writer. I never presumed to the god-like power of any sort of unique consciousness, but it was my consciousness and I was creating and inventing meanings authentic and unique to me (though shaped of course by outside influences) just as I am now.

Clifford goes on to recount the dismantling of this traditional humanist view of the subject. He starts by discussing the structuralist, mentioning Claude Levi-Strauss and Roland Barthes in particular. These structuralist, he says, "cast doubt on the autonomy of the freely choosing individual by positing instead a subject created or written by linguistic, sociological, and anthropological codes" (40). He goes on to state: "Writing [for the structuralist] does not directly express an individual's ideas; it transmits universal codes" (40). I'm not as well versed on Barthes and the structuralists as I ought to be, but this description reminds me of Joseph Campbell asserting in The Hero with a Thousand Faces that there is a universal code—the hero monomyth—that we find within stories from across the globe. Epics and myths express some sort of psychological (Campbell would assert with a nod to Jung's archetypes) universal experience of humanity and the human consciousness. Clifford goes on to lump Lacan with post-structuralist and neo-Marxist, but I see his work fitting more with this psychological perspective. I may not understand Lacan, but he seems essentially Freudian in his structuralist assessment of the subject:
Lacan, for example, develops a materialist theory of the speaker, or the speaking subject, where the "I" that enunciates differs from the ego that employs the "I." … The subject position one enters through language never fully reveals itself since the unconscious always displaces and condenses through linguistic masks as metaphor and metonymy." (40)
The subject is controlled by the ego and unconscious in ways it is unaware of consciously.

After this summary of the structuralist undercutting of the autonomous subject, he moves to discuss the post-structuralist "(re)vision." He mentions that post-structuralists were skeptical of the structuralists "general transhistorical systems of meaning"—i.e. any sort of universal force influencing the subject such as archetypes or the unconscious:
Meaning is thereby made situational and relational. Everything depends on the specific institution where the discourse takes place; in varying contexts the same words are radically transformed to mean one thing and then another. Poststructuralism, then, decenters writing as well as the self, seeing both not only as effect of language patterns but as the result of multiple discourses already in place, already overdetermined by historical and social meanings in constant internal struggle. (40)
With the poststructuralist, to include neo-Marxist and Deconstructionist, we have the postmodern critique of the autonomous subject. The critique seems to have three linch pins. First, that culture, ideology, and language (which contains both) determine the "subject"—what the writer thinks and says. Second, that no situation is universal and thus each situation is unique. Contingency rules and meaning or truth is dependent upon the particulars of the situation in which the meaning is expressed (dissio logio). Third, that language itself is uncertain; our filling of the gap between sign and signified is not fixed and can be undone by multiple alternatives to that equation we call meaning. Meaning itself is a fiction. He mentions Derrida, in particular, in reference to this third critique: "Derrida similarly displaces the subject from the center, for example, in his notion of difference where attempts to define linguistic signifiers create an endless postponement of presence, an endless play of signification. For Derrida, one signifier gives way to another so that meaning is always relational, always changing" (40). Any meaning, any assertion of "presence" can be countered with another meaning which language allows. Clifford gives shortshrift to the first critique about the power of culture and ideology to determine the meanings found and expressed by the subject with a nod to Foucault and not a mention at all of Bakhtin. He sums of the result of the poststructuralist, postmodern destruction of the humanist subject with this statement: "As a result, the independent and private consciousness formerly endowed with plentitude and presence, with a timeless and transcultural essence, becomes in postmodern thought a decentered subject constantly being called on to inhabit overdetermined positions, the implications of which can be only dimly grasped by a consciousness written by multiple, shifting codes" (40-41). The strawman view of this debate has on one side the subject who "creates" from a private agency within and the subject who is "created" by outside forces determining from the outside. Postmodernism would place greater agency on those forces from outside that determine the subject. Is it any wonder, then, with this postmodern perspective that invention became a dormant concern in composition/rhetoric? Invention became a naïve impossibility, supplanted by a heroic struggle against the ideologies that would oppress and determine the writer—perhaps a losing battle or an idealistic crusade for "justice."

The post-postmodern correction to this stripping of the subject's agency is to return some control to the writer, to acknowledge that in the face of these multiple outside influences the writer still shapes and forms their meaning in ways determined (to a degree) by themselves. Helen Foster's conception of "networked subjectivity" as well as Anis Bawarshi's conception of genre's interaction with the subject present alternative, broader views of the writer who writes and is written. Each presents "invention" as a form of negotiation that must be accomplished by the writer as he or she writes; where the writer has some power in this negotiation process. Thus, we have the reawakening of invention in writing studies.

To do Clifford justice, he doesn't fall into a narrow postmodern position that agency for the writer completely is determined from the outside, though he seems thoroughly neo-Marxist in his distrust of ideology's oppressive influence and the need for the writer to resist this oppression. He's all about ideology and hegemony and power. He bases the largest part of his thinking upon Althusser and his 1971 essay "Ideology and Ideological State Apparatus." He likes Althusser's position that "destigmatizes ideology as natural and inevitable" (41). So much of my experience with ideological criticism seems to present ideology as a bad thing—ew, that's ideological and thus bad implicitly. Seeing ideology as "natural" defines it as something like Burke's notion of the "terministic screen." It is an agreed upon perspective that through its terms, understandings, and conventions shapes a world view and beliefs. By its nature it includes as it excludes, allows as it disallows, names as it leaves unnamed. An ideology is a construct, socially negotiated and socially maintained. Quoting Althusser, Clifford says, "ideology represents 'the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence'" (42). OK, call it imaginary, but it still shapes how we see the world and interact within it, which means it is another word for reality.

Now to what seems so dated about Clifford's ideological critique of composition/rhetoric. I can't deny the validity of his criticism of composition teaching practices that he attacks, but I hear his critiques with a different ear that isn't so full of the terministic screen of ideological criticism. Instead, I have been influenced by Anis Bawarshi's Genre & The Invention of the Writer and her equation of structures with genre's. Bawarshi expands our understanding of genres from simple forms and even from recurring situations that generate these forms to genre as an ontologically and epistemologically shaping structure. Genre's are expressions of ideology; ideology is in kind of genre—a shaped structure that shapes. Thus, Clifford's critique of the writing subject in so much of composition/rhetoric could be really reduced to a criticism of the genre of writing held dear by so many writing teachers. This quote from Clifford sounds so much like Bawarshi to me in the sense that form equals genre and the nature of genre to shape writers: "But form is also an attitude toward reality; it is rhetorical power, a way to shape experience, and as such it constructs subjects" (43). Genre invents the writer. Clifford blasts the traditional academic essay for the "attitude toward reality" that it "fictionalizes": "it constructs subjects who assume that knowledge can be demonstrated merely by asserting a strong thesis and supporting it with three concrete points. But rarely is truth the issue. Writing subjects learn that the panoply of discourse conventions are, in fact, the sin qua non, that adherence to ritual is the real ideological drama being enacted" (43). Clifford's critique of form and ritual here seems analogous to blasting an ideology for being an ideology. Granted, he blasts the five paragraph essay for an illusion of establishing truth, but what in fact is the genre supposed to do and be within its context. It is, after all, a teaching-genre, a school-based form of writing intended to accomplish particular goals within the particular context of the school classroom. As such, it has its own validity despite its weaknesses from a larger discourse and epistemological viewpoint.

The way out is not necessarily to blast the academic essay with all its rules, conventions and rituals. As teachers of students writing within an academic context, we need to equip our students with proficiency in this kind of writing (Bartholomae would agree). But we also need to equip our students with an expanded awareness of this kind of writing as a genre. We need to equip our students with a knowledge of how genres function and how students need to interrogate a writing task in terms of genre—whatever that writing task might be. Clifford seems to arrive at this same position, but he expresses it in ideological terms. He talks about "raising their consciousness about the ideological dimensions of rhetoric" and "helping student to read and write and think in ways that both resist domination and exploitation and encourage self-consciousness about who they are and can be in the social world" (51). Yes. We should encourage self-consciousness that the writer is operating within a construct, a genre that generates desires and motivations that to a degree create the writer as the writer creates the genres. But no, in the sense that genres like ideologies are evil for being dominating and exploiting—every genre and every ideology can be critiqued for that fault. The challenge for the writer who writes, for the subject who writes as they are being written, is to negotiate (to invent) their position within that genre. That's what we need to teach.

Rescuing the Subject

2008-11-27T07:00:00.003-06:00

Miller, Susan. Rescuing the Subject: A Critical Introduction to Rhetoric and the Writer. Carbondale: Southern Illinois Press, 2004. (2004 paperback 2nd edition, originally published 1989).

Susan Miller's project in this text predominantly is to refigure the rhetorical tradition to highlight the significance of writing as opposed to oratory in how we conceive this tradition and how we understand "the subject"--i.e. the writer who writes. Do we conceive of the writer and what the writer is about through the lens of a rhetorical tradition dominated by concerns and figurations of oratory, or do we see the writer through a lens of "textual rhetoric?" It seems clear to me from how she ends the text and her special focus on Mina Shaughnessy and the struggles of developmental writers that she is discussing what I might call "textual literacy." She means the cognitive and linguistic skills to read and write text on a page. By recasting the rhetorical tradition and illuminating the prominence of thinking and philosophizing about the written word all the way back to Plato, Miller is "rescuing" the writer (the subject who writes) from a tradition biased toward the spoken word. She valorizes the scholarly study of the written word as unique. Charles Bazerman seems to be the most prominent scholar in "discourse studies" who has extended Miller's project in terms of research (though I could be wrong).

I recall a comment that John Schilb made in the video Take 20 about the difficulty Composition Studies (or Writing Studies) will have in the face of our modern transformation in literacy to a "new media" literacy. In the face of multi-modal texts, he said, we will face special challenges to define the nature of and relevance of written texts. He might have just been conservative here--guarding his traditional bastion of disciplinary work--but I think he speaks from the perspective of Miller's "textual rhetoric." Schilb's comment makes me wonder if Composition really ranges within the narrow walls of "textual rhetoric" or if it should range beyond just words on the page. I think this question is one of the largest questions facing Freshman Composition classes around the country. Perhaps some innovative teachers have broadened into new media literacy in both reception (critical reading) and production (critical "writing") of new media "texts," but I would guess that the majority of "English" teachers teaching writing have not. I know I can't claim to have made this transformation (though I peck at the edges), and I certainly don't see it amongst my colleagues. These musings make me wonder if Miller's point to recover writing in the rhetorical tradition isn't to a degree moot now. The problem now is that we use textual paradigms (print-based literacy) to describe and understand the new form of new media literacy. What is "remediation" after all but this way of using one construct to formulate another construct.

I want to return to the title of Miller's work--rescuing the subject. My interest in this book was predominantly in the title. I am interested in various conceptualizations of "the subject"--the writer who writes, the thinking agent who puts words to page. For my own research focus, I will have to present my own conceptualization of "the subject" since implicit in my understanding of process and reflection is a writer who makes decisions and choices about their writing. My special affinity with cognitive views toward composition (Flower and Hayes) presumes a thinking subject with power over how they conceive their own sense of reality. I think this cognitive tradition can be too narrowly reduced to the "unified self." Flower's own expansion into the "social cognitive theory of writing" is about taking into account these "outside" influences on writers.

I must say that Miller's thoughts on this issue of "the subject" are disappointing. However, she does describe the dynamic of the modernist "unified subject" theory and the post-modernist, deconstructionist indeterminant subject who faces being "written" by culture, conventions, and language itself. Let's see if I can find a few quotes:

"In this broader space, an originating presence to a text, the forgotten writer, is more complex than the individual and imaginatively 'masculine' subject, who we conceive of as an independent, potentially totalizing, univocal source of statements. It has been a relief, not just a logical linguistic and theoretical conclusion, to proclaim the recent 'death' of that figure.

The writer who enlarges our vision of what it means specifically to explain written discourse lives ... in a complex textual world. The writer knows especially about convention, precedents, and 'anxieties of influence,' the control of already written language over both meaning and the further actual results of writing. The writer, who is admittedly a fiction whose existence is never called into play outside a theoretically conceived writing event, both originates with, and results from, a written text. ... this writer simultaneously sacrifices 'meaning' to the resistance of written language, and written language to 'meaning,' in actual, time-bound performances." (15)

---
"The premises for this theoretical proposal are that writing cannot now be imagined only as a 'medium' for direct communication from a singular individual, and that it is always the living embodiment of a risk whose description must vary historically, but which is always the province of a textual 'actor' taking in hand a language that in fact can only fictionalize such assertive control." (36)
---
"I have assumed that working out this theory of writers historically, philosophically, and in terms of definitions of rhetoric will contribute to ongoing reconceptualizations within compositions studies because I take the act of writing to be still somewhat hidden in the persistent convention that writing only 'contains' individual speech or thought. Most theorists and teachers of written composition still unquestioningly emphasize a direct connection between thought and spoken-to-written language. Many lament the difference between 'authors' and the halting textual voices of imitative ... student writing. They aim to produce 'student writers' who write and read 'for themselves,' assuming that a thesis may be 'stated' with discernible clarity, coherence, and completeness. Composition, more than any other textual study, necessarily confronts writing as discovery, as play, and as process because it faces unstable student texts that have been written by those who seem to know only their own oral culture. But common practices in the field persistently honor oppositions to discovery, play, and process: product, seriousness, and perfect communication. Even the most enlightened often relegate the instabilities of writing to 'pedagogy' while retaining in their descriptions of 'rhetoric' an ideal of assertive and stable texts.

Alternatives to these tacit assumptions and their results depend on reconceiving both student writers and the act of writing." (150)
---

I think the missing link, or undeveloped promise, of Miller's book is its application in the classroom. She does a lot for the scholarly study of written communication, but only holds out a changed premise for writing teachers. It is up to the writing teacher to see where this new premise--the reconception of student writers and the act of writing--will take their pedagogy. From the quote above, it appears she offers a solidly "process" pedagogy as an alternative to current-traditional pedagogy by opposing process vs. product, play vs. seriousness, and discovery vs. perfect communication (if this last pair fit). From my perspective in 2008, I find this a disappointing way to reduce her thoughts on teaching. It is her enhances sensitivity to what is involved in the act of writing, her presentation of an expanded picture of the writer and writing with a long tradition behind it, that makes her book important. I keep coming back to Foster's "networked subjectivity," and I think that Miller would probably like Foster's notions of the writer.

The Electronic Writing Workshop and the e-Rhetorical Forum

2008-11-21T17:31:00.004-06:00

I talked previously about the importance of choice for student writing in our classrooms. I want to discuss now the difference that using technology can make for conducting our "writing workshop" where students write on topics of their choice. I have taught in a teaching context where students shared and responded to each other over electronic networks for over fifteen years, and in that time I've noticed some important differences from what we might call a "traditional" classroom learning environment (i.e. non-mediated).

The first set of differences is merely a matter of mechanics. An electronic network makes a writing workshop work so much better. Student writing posted to an online setting is instantly available to everyone in the class. When doing peer response, there is no need to make multiple copies for the whole group to read, nor is there the need for turn-taking in the act of peer response. Multiple readers can be responding to the same text concurrently. Lastly, the electronic writing workshop explodes the walls of the classroom so that students can access and respond to this writing outside of class.

The next difference in the Electronic writing workshop is really in degree not kind. One of the strengths we know of writing workshop is the peer and collaborative nature of the classroom ecology. Students don't just feed all their writing to the teacher but share their writing with their peer or response group. This peer influence is crucial to the difference writing workshop makes for student writers. The electronic writing workshop heightens this peer and collaborative influence significantly. I believe sharing and responding to writing within an e-Rhetorical forum--a recurring place for posting and sharing writing--positions student into a unique dual role I call the "role of the spectator-participant." My meaning, however, does not imply the objective distance that term implies from ethnographic methodology. Within a learning context where students are posting and responding to each others writing over an online network, the students posting writing are all participants; however, at the same time they are spectators because they are reading and watching the posts of their peers. Each role has what we might consider a symbiotic relationship to the other role. The knowledge that one's writing will be going in front of the entire class influence our participation; likewise, since we are observing the performance of others we see things that influence what we decide to do when it is our turn to perform and put our writing in front of the group.

I have defined six key influences that this role of the spectator-participant has on student writings within an electronic writing workshop:

Peer Influence/Membership: Students experience a sense of common identity and common activity. Within this group they look to each other for support, ideas, and examples. The sense of membership fosters an interest for the spectator in the activities of the other members and stimulates the participant into more engaged participation in the group.

Audience: Because students know that their writing sent to the group in the network will be read by the others in the group and that their writing will be compared to the writing of their peers, students experience a greater sense of audience. Although participants don’t have a uniform reaction to this awareness of audience, many student/participants experience a feeling of engagement, an openness and comfort to try more things with their writing, and a pressure to make their writing better and fit more into the “normal discourse” of the group.

Multiplicity: One of the chief experiences for the spectator is a sense of multiplicity. They are exposed through the network to many viewpoints and ideas. Through the exposure to different ideas and perspectives (the “other”), students are given an expanded base of information and they experience a sense of displacement from their original viewpoint.

Comparability: Multiplicity stimulates an experience of comparability for the spectator. The students compare their writing to the writing of their peers and they compare the writing of their peers to each other.

Orientation/Perspective/Normalizing: What the spectator experiences and then the participant attempts to incorporate into their participation is a sense of orientation or perspective. If multiplicity exposes the spectator to new ideas, comparability and evaluation of that multiplicity help to form a new sense of where they fit in to the larger discourse of the group.

Disembodiment/Virtual Time/Objectivity: The computer interface makes the sharing and responding to texts different. Because the spectator-participant reads and shares writing through the computer (disembodied and in virtual time), participants experience distance from the person they are responding to, free from the social dynamics of face-to-face communication. For spectators and participants, the computer interface also can lead to more deliberative communication.

Students placed into the learning context of the electronic writing workshop are placed into a different position, a different dynamic than the traditional classroom writing workshop that influences their learning and engagement in the writing classroom. I'd like to say this context is qualitatively better, but I can't. I energy of a face-to-face writing group is very powerful, so I think we need to take a critical look at the electronic writing workshop to see the gains and losses. My belief is that the electronic writing workshop is broader and potentially deeper, but not necessarily so (just as the traditional writing workshop is no guarantee). The greatest loss is the body--the voice and flesh of face-to-face interaction. The impact of this loss should not be slighted; however, there are gains in the online setting, especially regarding multiplicity and comparability.

"as participants we APPLY our value systems, but as spectators we GENERATE and REFINE the system itself." --James Britton, "Spectator Role and the Beginnings of Writing"