Identify the Problem Requiring Research
The problem I propose to address with my dissertation research can be illustrated through the recent history of Freshman Composition at Texas Tech University. A number of years ago, between-the-draft reflections were included as a core component of the curriculum. After each draft and after each peer response, students were asked to reflect upon their piece of writing and what they might do to improve that draft for the next one. The activity was included in the curriculum based upon the belief that such reflections helped students develop a critical self-awareness and thus greater control of their own writing activity. In Fall 2007, however, these between-the-draft reflections were taken out of the curriculum. They were seen to have no significant benefit and to be extra work on already overloaded students (and graders). The decision was based upon a belief that students wrote these reflections without engagement and without effect upon their learning, their practice or end product.
This back and forth inclusion and exclusion of such in-task reflection speaks to the problem surrounding this pedagogical activity. We don’t know enough about what happens for students as they reflect or about its possible influence on students’ writing and learning within a Freshman Composition class. We don't have a theory that adequately explains and describes what happens for students as they reflect in this way, so that this pedagogical exercise can be used effectively in the classroom. This dissertation study proposes, then, to address this problem by using grounded theory and comparative analysis of student writing and reflections within Freshman Composition to generate such a theory.
The Research Question focusing this study is:
How do teacher-prompted rhetorical reflections performed by freshman students at TTU influence and relate to students’ learning and writing practice?
The purpose of this grounded theory study is to understand the role of reflection for freshman writer's within the activity of writing. Can a comparative analysis of teacher-prompted rhetorical reflections generate a theory to explain and describe what happens when students engage in this activity?
Definition of terms:
“teacher-prompted rhetorical reflection”: refers to a pedagogical activity when a teacher asks a student to reflect upon their writing and writing performance between drafts.
“rhetorical reflection”: designates the in-task nature of reflection and is defined more clearly later.
“learning”: refers to a change and growth in thinking and practice experienced by the learner.
“comparative analysis”: a method of textual analysis used in grounded theory to generate theory.
Review Some of the Basic Literature Regarding the Problem
The problem about reflection in the field of Composition Studies is an issue of pedagogical practice: we have adopted and adapted theories from others and theorized from our own practice a theory of reflection, yet (as the instance of TTU's composition program illustrates) we are ambivalent about it fulfilling its theoretical promises in practice. Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss present simple criteria for judging the adequacy of a theory: "theory must fit the situation being researched, and work when put to use" (3). Our current theory of reflection--predominantly borrowed from philosophers such as Dewey, Habermas, and Schon--may not fit the writing situation since applying the principles of these theories in practice doesn't seem to work well enough to gain reflection, particularly rhetorical reflection, wider acceptance.
The issue of the adequacy of our current theory of reflection has not come up in the scholarly literature regarding reflection. Reflection seems to suffer the same problem that Joseph Harris noted about the term “community”--it never seems to be spoken up with negative connotations. We approach reflection uncritally. Hence, the brief review of the literature on reflection in Composition Studies will present the three major strands of reflection used in practice and critique how each of these “theories of use” were generated. These strands include: course-wide reflection, the cognitive model of the writing process, and self-evaluation/revision strategies.
Reflection as a widely-used term and pedagogical practice emerged in Composition Studies in the late 1980s and early 1990s concurrent with the growth of portfolios as an alternative means to evaluate writing as well as increased interest in Composition in writing as a form of constructing learning and “making meaning” (epitomized best by the work of Ann Bertoff). Kathleen Blake Yancey's 1992 Portfolios in the Writing Classroom: An Introduction marks this trend more than any single text. Portfolios contain a reflective “letter” or statement from students, and many teachers began to see that for students to reflect effectively upon their writing and learning experience at the end of a course they need to reflect throughout the course. The exigencies of assessment, then, brought reflection into the middle of writing process pedagogy as a kind of backward filling in of a gap. Yancey, again, was the most prominent theorist in this regard with her 1998 Reflection in the Writing Classroom. In this text, she outlines the theory and practice of incorporating reflection course-wide by describing three types of reflection: reflection-in-action, constructivist reflection, and reflection-in-presentation. The 1990s, thanks in large part to her lead, was a time when much was published on reflection in Composition: Higgins (1992), Bolton (1993), Gleason (1993), Flower (1994), Hughes and Kooy (1997), Qualley (1997), Brown (1998), Underwood (1998), Pope (1999), J. Sommers (1989), Anson (2000).
Yancey explicitly states in her volume that she is retheorizing Schon's understandings of reflection for the writing classroom (Reflection vi). Schon presented the idea of the “reflective practitioner” and ways to improve professional practice. He positions reflection as a form of knowing or “non-technical rationality” appropriate when causal inferences are a judgment call. This situated form of theorizing practice follows a method: 1) reflect on work (know it, review it), 2) discern patterns, 3) project appropriately from these patterns, 4) hypothesize new ways of thinking about the situation (Yancy, Reflection 12). Yancey simplifies this theory from Schon for the writing classroom into this model and method:
Model of Reflection
(look backwards) Review <--dialogue/dialectic with--> Project (look forward)
|
leads to
|
Discovery
Method of Reflection
Multiple Perspectives
|
leads to
|
Insight
Through the combination of Dewey's notions about reflection as well, Yancey asserts that we have a coherent theory of reflection (20). Interestingly, this theory is presented as a process or procedure: “Reflection, then, is the dialectical process by which we develop and achieve, first, specific goals for learning; second, strategies for reading those goals; and third, means of determining whether or not we have met those goals or other goals. Speaking generally, reflection included the three processes of projection, retrospection (or review), and revision” (6). She goes on to specify three processes that apply to writing:
I.goal-setting, revisiting, and refining
II.text-revising in the light of retrospection
III.the articulation of what learning has taken place, as embodied in various texts as well as in the processes used by the writer (6)
Within these three processes of reflection, we can see my own charting of reflection into two types of reflection: rhetorical reflection and curricular reflection:
Yancey's first two goals of goal-setting and text-revising fit more with “rhetorical reflection” which occurs in-task, is more writer-centered, and is geared toward problem-solving within the activity of writing. Yancey's term for this kind of reflection is “reflection-in-action” (from Schon). The third goal, articulating learning, fits what I am calling “curricular reflection” which occurs post-task for the purposes of constructing learning typically (though not exclusively) for an audience (often for the purposes of assessment). Within Composition Studies, this type of reflection has predominantly occurred in reflective letters accompanying end-of-course portfolios, and most scholarship about reflection has focused on this type of reflection: Yancey (1997, 1998); Black, Sommers, and Stygall (1994); Hamp-Lyons and Condon (1993, 2000); Camp (1998).
Although it may be an overgeneralization, most of the theories and practices of reflection in Composition Studies came out of classroom experimentation or a process that Yancey labels “reflective research.” Below is an outline of the research method described in her book Reflection in the Writing Classroom:
student text (reflection/writing/interview) <--dialectic with--> theory
|
dialectic with
|
what we observe and interpret
|
Then we explain it to others so we can explain it to ourselves--conclusions (17)
Interestingly, student texts as data are first interrogated relative to theory and then held up to the first person experiences and interpretations of the researcher/teacher. Theory, then, in this course-wide strand of reflection has a prominent place in shaping our understandings about reflection.
The second major strand of scholarly work on reflection in Composition studies has to do with metacognition and Flower and Hayes' cognitive model of the writing process (1980). Although they developed their model from extensive research, the research since that time has in large part been done to validate this model. Those interested in reflection have looked at the Flower and Hayes model and identified “reviewing” and the “monitor”--as well as “metacognition”-- as synonymous terms for reflection and the activity of reflection. In seeking to understand the thinking processes occurring when we write, they position reflection as one important part of that process, one element in the mechanics of the model's operation. Notice, again, reflection is understood within the frame of process (like Schon and Yancey). Notable research and articles written on reflection from this cognitive view point include: Raphael (1989), Steinberg (1980), Flower (1994), Sitko (1998), English (1998), McAlpine (1999), Alamargot (2001), Efklides (2006). Bereiter and Scardamalia work in their 1987 The Psychology of Written Composition must have a special place in the psychological consideration of writing and reflection. In their own cognitive model of the writing process, they position reflection prominently in relation to “knowledge transforming.” Lastly, John Hayes has gone on to modify the cognitive model of the writing process, putting forward in 1996 a new model of revision that positions reflection as a mediating “Fundamental Process.” Within the process of reflection are labeled two actions: problem solving and decision making (14). The danger I see from this cognitive strand of reflection comes from the potential ways of understanding and using reflection have been generated from and generated to fit a model.
The last lens through which the field of Composition studies has examined reflection has been in relation to student self-evaluations. This work, done mostly by Richard Beach (1976, 1979, 1984) examines the influence of self-evaluation on revision. Joseph Harris' recent work (2003, 2006) follows this same tradition and impetus to find ways to help students become better at revision through what he calls “critical practice.” Although these self-evaluations are not labeled as “rhetorical reflections,” they are similarly situated between drafts and ask for students to review their work with an eye toward the next draft. Other research and scholarship done on self-evaluations in connection to reflection include Moore (1993), Haswell (1993), and Anson (2000). Whereas Yancey's work on reflection-in-action highlights the inventional qualities of these between the draft reflections, work done both by the cognitivist and those done in self-evaluation stress the importance of judgment and how these activities reveal and promote the formation of judgment.
What is the gap in our understanding of reflection in Composition?
We actually have an incredibly rich theoretical understanding of reflection, yet I see two gaps that this research will attempt to address.
1) Our theories and understandings about reflection have been generated from other theories or developed to fit a model. As Yancey's “Reflective Research Method” illustrated, our understanding of concrete examples of reflection have been first interpreted through the lens of other theorist or models. The danger is that those theories and models shape what we see when we examine what is happening when students reflect.
2) The second question we have to ask about the current theory of reflection is whether it truly fits and works 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? What is it about reflection that our current theory doesn't explain?
Outline Goals and Methods of Research for Adding to the Knowledge Regarding the Problem
To fill this gap in our understanding of rhetorical reflection as a pedagogical activity, I propose doing a grounded theory analysis of the writing and reflective texts produced by Freshman writers within the First Year Writing Program at Texas Tech. By focusing on data first and using techniques of comparative analysis and theoretical sampling, I will seek to approach an empirical study of reflective texts in a way that has not been done before in Composition Studies in order to generate a theory of reflection that may fit and work better than our current model.
My study will be an archival study examining texts within the TOPIC database from the academic year 2004-2006, which contains thousands of these texts. This data set offers the unique opportunity to study thousands of texts both through textual analysis, but also through datagogic methods of data-mining. Datagogic within Composition Studies refers to the use of databases as a central site where all writing is submitted in a writing course. “Datagogic methods” refers to new methods of researching writing within this new database setting.
According to Glaser and Strauss (1967), this dissertation research would be considered a beginning step in generating theory. They believe the initial establishment of categories and properties are best established by first minimizing differences among the comparison groups (55). My data set of freshman writers of roughly the same age from the same school represents such a “minimized” group. Only after these categories and properties are established within this relatively homogeneous set of groups should the researcher turn to “maximizing” the differences among comparative groups to further refine and develop the theory. This direction toward maximizing differences among comparison groups points to a possible post-dissertation research agenda.
The first phase of my research will be to do this basic work of generating theory within a minimized group (TTU Freshman Composition, TOPIC). 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). The second phase of my research will engage in confirmation of the fitness and workability of the theory generated by engaging in Content Analysis of a large sample of student writing from TOPIC as well as strategic data mining within the TOPIC database.
The following chart derived from Creswell (2003) will describe my general research design:
Research Approach
Qualitative
Knowledge Claims
(epistemological stance)
Constructivist
Strategies of Inquiry
(methodologies)
Grounded theory
Methods
Comparative Analysis of texts
Additionally, possible Content Analysis and data-mining
Sample/Sampling
Theoretical sampling of various groups of Freshman writers and writing from within the TOPIC database. In theoretical sampling, the process of data collection is controlled by the emergence of theory.
A second phase of the study to validate the discovered theory might entail Content Analysis and data mining
Data Analysis
Close textual analysis of texts will be used following grounded theory's method of comparative analysis.
From this comparative analysis, derive a coding instrument for analyzing these reflections by a team of coders. Identify key search parameters for large-scale data mining.
My research process as I see it right now might follow this path.
1.Use grounded theory to discover categories, properties, and their interrelation and generate a theory
2.Derive a coding instrument from this grounded theory analysis
3.Apply this coding instrument to the content analysis of a sample of texts to check the understandings derived from the grounded theory analysis
4.Use large-scale data-mining analysis to further triangulate some of the understandings coming from the previous research efforts
Outline of Chapters
1.Introduction: The Rationale for Studying Rhetorical Reflection
2.Literature Review on Reflection in Learning
3.The Connection of Reflection to Invention
4.Methodology and Methods for Research Study
5.Results from Study
6.Implications for Practice
Explanation of Reading List Materials and Their Relation to the Dissertation Research
The scholarship contained in my reading list will contain four broad categories: reflection, invention, composition/rhetoric and rhetoric, and research methods. Since the focus of my inquiry is on reflection, the bulk of my reading list will contain readings related to reflection. These readings will contain general scholarship on reflection, reflection in education, and reflection within Composition/Rhetoric. Since reflection is so often linked to learning, this section may contain theories of learning that are applicable to reflection. Invention is added as a special category in my reading list because I believe there is a link between reflection and invention, especially as it relates to a writer negotiating their rhetorical stance within the activity of writing. The third category will present foundational text within the field of Composition/Rhetoric as well as in Rhetoric. I don’t propose to present a laundry list of Composition and Rhetoric text, but I will include texts which have been significant in my understanding of writing and rhetoric. In addition, I will include a sub-category of core texts in Technical Communication since this doctorate is in Technical Communication and Rhetoric. The last category will deal with research and research design. Although I will present some foundational texts for researching (such as MacNealy (1999) and Johanek (2000)), I will also include texts focused directly on the methodologies and methods I will use in my study, particularly Grounded Theory.
No comments:
Post a Comment