Annotated Bibliography beginnings

I am not that far along with my annotated bibliography so far. I've mostly been researching and researching in the databases and on the web for any research studies I can find that investigate the role of what I call "rhetorical reflection" (in-task, writer-based, validity testing) in the writing process. I have only really found one, but I'm still searching and getting into past research done on metacognition and the writing process by Flower and Hayes and others.

So far I have my list of possible studies. I'm still adding to it--
http://www.accd.edu/sac/english/lirvin/TTech/5060/ResearchRhetReflect.pdf

I also have developed a table to chart out each research study reference:

Chart for Research Assessment

Title/Author
Research Question(s)	What are the focused questions for this research?
Research Approach	Quantitative, Qualitative, Mixed Methods
Knowledge Claims (methodology)	Postpositivism—determination, reductionism, empirical observation and measurement, theory verification Constructivism—understanding, multiple participant meanings, social and historical constraints, theory generation Advocacy/Participatory—political, empowerment issue-oriented, collaborative, change-oriented Pragmatism—consequences of actions, problem-centered, pluralistic, real-world practice oriented (6)
Strategies of Inquiry	Operating at a more applied level are strategies of inquiry that provide specific direction for procedures (or methods) in a research design. (13)
Methods	Specific methods performed following the general strategy of inquiry
Sample/Sampling	How did they choose/gather the sample? What is the size of the sample? What forms of rigor were applied to their sampling?
Data Analysis	How was the data interpreted? What forms of rigor were applied to their data analysis?
Results	What were the results of their research?
Assessment	Overall assessment of this research project?

So far I have only one source fit into this chart:

Title/Author	Anson, Chris. "Talking About Writing: A Classroom-Based Study of Students' Reflections on Their Drafts." Self-Assessment and Development in Writing: A Collaborative Inquiry. New Jersey: Hampton Press, 2000: 59-74.
Research Question(s)	How do writers represent their own writing process? How do they talk about their writing? Can we explore writer's reflections on their emergent texts to understand how writers develop expertise
Research Approach	Qualitative
Knowledge Claims (methodology)	Constructivism
Strategies of Inquiry	Classroom-based research, purely descriptive, case study Content analysis? Rhetorical analysis
Methods	Talk aloud protocol--"retrospective accounts" done in naturalistic setting (within context of class)
Sample/Sampling	Taped recorded narrative commentaries about the process of writing a first draft turned in with draft. Few strict guidelines put on focus of tapes (i.e. no direct prompts). Does not specify number of sample—only says "classes." Selected accounts used for data analysis based on whether they were the very best or very worst writers. No specific number of how many fit into this sample.
Data Analysis	Developed a coding analysis rubric based on two poles: 1) Halliday's functional approach to language --Ideational (speaker's content) --Interpersonal (audience) --Textual (language) 2) Time-oriented dimension --Retrospective (what he or she did during creation of text) --Projective (focus on actions the writer says he or she intends to do) --Temporal (occurs in the present moment) Developed rubric with nine possible combinations from the two axes (functional/time-oriented) e.g. : R/ID = Retrospective/Ideational No evidence of use of inter-rater reliability done Brings in theories of intellectual development from Perry's Model of Intellectual Development in his interpretation of data
Results	Stronger writers showed more control of their writing process; weaker students lack control, seldom comment projectively. There is an unmistakably "absolutist" quality in the metacommentaries of students who speak of their writing textually and in the past tense, and there is an unmistakably "evaluistic" quality in the talk of both successful novice writers and experienced writers as they shift among functions, retrospect and project, and embrace uncertainty in their own control of their work. It appears that there is a strong relationship between proficiency and the blending/shifting of functions in scheme. Concludes with how this metacommentary can enable him in his classroom practice to provide better feedback and direction to struggling writers.
Assessment	This article is focused directly on the type of "data" I am interested in and develops a VERY interesting tool for coding this data. He varies from me in that he transcribes verbal accounts and I use written accounts. This seems interesting to me and significant since I seem to base a fair amount of my thinking on the importance of the act of writing. His sampling seems problematic to me, but he is being descriptive, qualitative. Should he have used inter-rater reliability checks to assess the usefulness of his coding rubric? Since he is not counting tendencies, perhaps not.

I plan to create charts like this for ten to twenty research studies that I have. The problem is that few focus directly on what I want to study, so I have to interpellate to other instances of reflection that I could consider "rhetorical." I know that I am not far in this process, but that is where I am right now. More progress to come next week.

~L