Facing Yancey

To a large degree, my research work will have to deal with work in composition and reflection done previously by Kathleen Yancey. That doesn't mean I need to contradict her or necessarily amplify her, but I have to deal with her work. I have been re-reading her Reflection in the Writing Classroom and these are a few of the things right now about her ideas and work I must face.

1) We already have a coherent theory of reflection--so why do we need a new one?
Speaking about how reflection is a good means to create a "student-centered" curriculum, Yancey advocates using reflection because it is "theorized in a coherent way"(20). Implicit in this statement is the belief that the current theory of reflection meets Glaser and Strauss' criteria for a theory--that it fits and that it works. The theory is descriptive of the phenomenon and works when put into practice.

So what is this theory?

Yancey seems to promote what could be called a "model" of reflection. She offers a couple of these models and methods, but they each are similar.

Model #1:

Review (look back) --dialogue/dialectic with-- Project (look forward)
set problem
conceptualize problem from diverse perspectives
check and confirm

leads to

DISCOVERY
as we seek to reach goals we set for ourselves

Method of Model #1:

Conceptualize Multiple Perspectives (cognitive, intuitive, affective)
leads to
INSIGHT

Model #2: from Donald Schon (where Yancey begins to equate professional practitioner with student)

reflect on work
(know it)
(review it)
>>

discern patterns

>>
hypothesize new way of thinking about a situation
_________________________
THEORIZE OUR OWN PRACTICE

I can see now that Schon is proposing this approach to reflection as a means for developing theory! (Sort of like Grounded Theory.)

Without doubt, each method is founded deeply on interpretation, on personal interpretation.

So I come back to my question--with such a well conceived "theory" of reflection, do we really need a new one? What reason is their for pursuing a new theory? I can think right now of two reasons--

1) Our theories of reflection have been generated from our practice in interpretive ways: we have generated this theory from looking at the world, but mostly this "looking" has been a logical/deductive interpretation and theorizing based upon this experience. Much of our theorizing is founded on philosophic thinking about the nature of knowledge and the nature of thought. It has been built on dialectical inquiry between thought and experience. There is no problem with this, but I don't think we can say the theory was built from the ground up, out of the data and out of a wide array of data. I don't know--this is a weak point I think for me because so many thinkers have pursued this theory. We make assumptions, however, that this model of reflection is what happens. So the angle here for my study is HOW I will be coming to some kind of theory of reflection. It will be different than how we have generated our theory before. (See below discussion of Yancey's reflective research methodology.)

2) Second angle--Does this theory really fit and work as well as we think? It is a beautiful theory and makes perfect sense. Yet, we encounter instances when it doesn't work or doesn't happen. Why? What is going on? I have used the ambiguity about reflection's utility at TTU to illustrate the problem. If reflection worked so well (as the theory states), then why would it be cut from the curriculum? Why wouldn't more people be using reflection in their teaching?

These two rationales seem sufficient. Now I have to get them into my proposal.

Reflective Research Methodology
Yancey outlines her methodology for generating her theory and practice outlined in her text. I would say that this methodology is typical for how research on reflection has been done and justified. Here is the approach:

Student Reflection/Text (data) --dialectic with-- Theory
|
--dialectic with--
what we observe and interpret

then explain it to others so we can explain it to ourselves

The key thing to note about this methodology is the place of theory. Glaser and Strauss would worry that the early dialectic with theory would color and shape what we observe and what we interpret. Yancey herself questions if what she is doing is research (15). She bases most of her theories and discussions about practice on examples from her students, perhaps one to three sections of Freshman Composition.

If the end point is about pedagogy and practice, we can see that I am proposing to make statements about the pedagogy and practice of using teacher-prompted in-task rhetorical reflections based from a different position of knowing, a knowing generated from the data (student reflections/texts) and a systematic attempt to find a theory which fits and works with this data.

Last note: The other thing I note in her own rhetoric about reflection is the use of the term "dialectic." Dialectic seems to be the crucial intermediary catalyst and means for developing insight and movement in the reflection process. Dialectic is a method of back and forth questioning and dialogue leading to truth or some agreed upon truth. What is interesting to note here is that Yancey obviously is using the term metaphorically--dialectic literally happens between two people, but here there is a silent kind of virtual dialectic between the writer/researcher and the text or data, between the writer/researcher and a theorist. Interesting...