Revision Tasks for Pre-Diss Proposal v3.2

--based upon feedback from Fred and Becky
--presented to Rich for his input and any guidance concerning these revision tasks

1)Work on Problem Statement
“Identify the Problem Requiring Research”

I need to define my “problem” better and forecast the general rationale of the proposal within the problem statement. Using TTU as an illustration of the problem has received luke warm response. The level I could work on this task could be fairly minor by adding in the broader context of Flower's discussion about the problem with reflection as a pedagogical practice (we don't know what kind of knowledge it leads to and whether it really is a luxury or not (does it make a difference that is worth it).

I think it is worth it to re-open my “search” for the problem. I think this will involve some thinking and writing on my part. I also will probably look at some example reflections done by some students this last summer to see what I see. Get back in touch with the “in practice” question about this kind of assignment. I also need to look again at my Spring 2007 report on reflection inside the TTU dept. I might be able to cite this study to further bolster my claim that TTU provides a good illustration of the problem. Also, and this is a big if, I could post a message to the WPA list for some input about other's possible problems with reflection. I've wanted to do this anyway, but I don't want to sound stupid.

2)Work on Introduction Section of Lit Review
“Review of Some of the Basic Literature Regarding the Problem”
Provide more of an introduction to the lit review section where I better define “rhetorical reflection” in context. This would mean bringing back the Moon definition of reflection I had in v1 as well as some of the explanation of my graphical depiction of the poles of reflection. The essence of my thesis in this lit review (that our development of a theory of reflection in composition has come from logical deduction and classroom active research—we haven't generated a theory that comes from a systematic comparative analysis of the data (I.e. Grounded theory).

3)Firming up the “So What?”
I need to have a clear statement of why doing this study is important. What difference will it make? What knowledge will it create for us? I think I can look to both Flower and to Yancey to pull some “so what.” I need to have this “so what” referred to in the Problem Statement, mentioned again in the Lit Review, and then expressed more clearly in the “gap” section (p. 6).

In this “So What” statement I will need to clarify why this study is different than Flower's and is needed.

4) Why Grounded Theory?
In the beginning of the methodology section, and perhaps alluded to in the problem statement, I need to define grounded theory better and argue for why it is an appropriate methodology more.

5) Clarify “Shared Knowledge” and “Disturbed Knowledge”
I need to think about this more, but my reader should sense what is shared and agreed upon but what is not agreed upon or not known. What is “disturbed?” I will need to think more about this, but I believe it should give me guidance in how I frame my lit review and then present my “so what” in the pre-proposal.

6) Research Design/Methods—open for now
I think my research design as a two or three part sequence is an open question for right now. I think a lot will be worked out as I do a pilot. Becky thought just doing the grounded theory would be enough, but Rich and Fred both seem to want some “triangulation” in the form of forming a coding instrument and doing content analysis based upon it, and then doing some datagogic data-mining. Fred seems to think I will be developing methods, but in my mind I will be using established methods. I am still not sure how to resolve the theory generation/theory validation dichotomy within my own proposed research design right now.