Notes from Becky's Comments

I want to take a moment to process Becky's comments before I integrate them with Fred's.

Point #1--Problem with the problem statement
She hesitates to locate the problem at TTU, and says that I may not have identified a problem. Do I have a problem? What is meant by the word "problem" and does the research need to center around a "problem?" I wrote an earlier blog here wrestling with the word "problem" and how Creswell suggests that synonyms for problem might be issue or question. Yet the diss genre seems to WANT the frame of problem-solution. How much do I need to cram my round peg (whatever shape it is) into this square hole?

I think I can bolster this section by bringing up Flower's point that it is an "open question" about the pedagogical value of reflection. But is this a problem? I think I need to take some time to try and step out of my reflection bubble and rethink what sort of problems/issues there are with reflection. Rethink the "problem" entirely.

Point #2--Forecast "gap" more in my problem statement
That is, I need to bring up what I am saying is a problem--we have formed our theory of reflection in a faulty way, or possibly in a problematic way. Again, she is saying that I need to put more ummph into my problem statement.

Point #3--Question on comment
On bottom page #3, Becky says I should "situate reader/writer centered in Flower before using it," but I'm not sure what she means. By "using it" she means presenting my chart of reflection along three axis. I think she is thinking I need to bring up Flower's notion of reader-based prose and writer-based prose, acknowledge her influence on those terms I use.

Hmm... It would seem that she wants more introduction to my use of this chart. I do feel that I have plunked it into the proposal. It was a prominent piece in my version #1 to describe reflection and help place different frameworks of reflection used in composition.

I hate to make this proposal longer, but maybe I need to bring back that definition of reflection offered by Moon and then my chart.

Point #4--Who sees the gaps? Is it worth studying?
On page #6 in my section on "what it the gap in our understanding?" I think Becky may have been hinting at a wording change to this sentence:
"We actually have an increadibly rich theoretical understanding of reflection, yet I see two gaps that this research will attempt to address:"

She says, "Not bad, necessarily, but is it worth studying if you are the ONLY one who sees it?"
(Then she has a smiley face.)

But she may be saying more here. I could change the sentence to a passive construction or turn it into a sort of plural/chorus construction (Despite this rich theoretical understanding of reflection, two gaps exist...).

She brings up a good point--if I am the only one who sees "the problem" then is it worth studying? Here again is the WGRA question--the SO WHAT? I think in general this means that I need to bolster the SO WHAT? of my proposal. I think this is very do-able and I need to do some musing/drafting/writing/blogging on the question to refine it.


Point #5--On page #6 she mentions that I need to justify WHY grounded theory is particularly well-suited for addressing my question/problem. OK. It looks like I need a couple of justification sentences in paragraph #1 of the methodology section. I can refer back to what I wrote in an earlier blog post here.

These are all very good points for me to chew on. Next to integrate them with Fred's comments.