I had lunch with Fred day before yesterday, and I am still trying to process our discussions. I got the message fairly clearly that I need to push on through and "get it done." This imperative is throwing me off center for a couple of reasons that I think come down to "task representation." My conception of this task of the dissertation may be too grand and large. Fred seems to say that the dissertation is really a smaller task than I may have been thinking of it as. Just get it done.
I have been reviewing in close detail the thinking of the major theorists and scholars related to reflection since last summer. I have about 45K words and I'm not done yet reviewing reflection in the field of composition rhetoric. And now I hear the call to be much more pragmatic and do what I need to do to get the damn thing done. This call is a bit scary to me because it pushes me to the end game earlier than I am ready (I feel), but on another account I am enjoying this close review. I am hammering out and constructing my understanding and perspective on these thinkers and past work on reflection. I've just finished writing 11 pages and 5K+ words demonstrating that we have a "portfolio-centric" view of reflection in our field and that Yancey misinterprets Schon's notion of reflection-in-action when she bootstraps it into reflection in the writing classroom. I don't know, but I feel like I need to earn the right to say some of the things I know I will say in the dissertation by doing this thorough background work. I don't think I can spend twenty pages in my lit review in the dissertation going into comp/rhets portfolio-centric framework on reflection and where Yancey when wrong with reflection-in-action. BUT, I think I will be able to say with more confidence these things in briefer form within the dissertation with this background work behind me.
So what do I do? For right now, I feel that I need to keep pushing on at the cumbersome rate I am going a bit longer. I need to dig into research done on reflection-in-action (the little there is) and especially look at the work done by the cognitivist. I suppose I might be a bit more streamline in places where I might name or point out that there is a bunch of stuff on "whatever" but I don't have to thoroughly dig into it in detail.
As a deadline, I think I will HAVE to finish this first draft of the lit review by no later than the end of Spring Break. I believe I will be well positioned then to "get it done!"
Oh... so what did Yancey get wrong about reflection-in-action? Here is an excerpt:
"It is clear from her use of the term “reflection-in-action” that Yancey is redefining the concept in her own terms. Whereas before she has represented reflection-in-action as the thinking occurring while the writer writes, here she seems to broadly define it as the post-task reflection that occurs on a single text. She offers this definition of reflection-in-action: “Reflection-in-action tends to be embedded in a single composing event, tends to be oriented to a single text, its focus squarely on the writer-reader-text relationship and on the development of that text” (26). Nothing exclusively locates this form of reflection as post-task; however, her portfolio-centric view of reflection leads her conceive of this reflection as a kind of portfolio cover letter but on a single essay cycle."
-
I just picked up Stephen North's The Making of Knowledge in Composition: Portrait of an Emerging Field (1987) and I found a passage tha...
-
As Ian Dey notes, the conceptual elements of categories, properties, and dimensions can be a muddle and the distinction between them can get...
-
Pre-dissertation Proposal Lennie Irvin Ph.D. Student in Technical Communication and Rhetoric, Texas Tech University Identify the Problem Req...
1 comment:
Fred's right in that you need to move forward. You have plenty of time after to compose a book on reflection. That's something that I see you doing; perhaps furthering Moon on Schon, especially. Rather than state Yancey is wrong, instead, highlight the differences in her conception of reflection-in-action. Perhaps in your lit review mention that earlier, too. Here are notes on your lit review draft:
- I believe the term "reflection" was used before 1979, but as a core concept perhaps around Pianko.
- Avoid generalizations, like "has become a concept we accept uncritically"; not everyone accepts it uncritically.
- You emphasize community a lot in the first paragraph--is that because you'll be discussing community in some way?
- Need a clear statement about what you mean by value-added early in your discussion of it.
- Solid writing, Lennie. Very cohesive.
- If you're going with APA style, you'll need to include dates of books, etc.
- If you have ellipses, do you need [...] brackets?
- Awkward "nearly the exact belief about"
- Nice to see Joel English there in your lit review. His statement makes your point--it may very well be the key, but who is to know?
- Yes, need a sentence stating what you mean by "value added," because that's a category of your review.
- You switch fonts, btw, around "perspective on reflection. Reflection"
- Black is one of the first critical books on portfolios. Not sure if you need to use it or not. While Yancey's 1992 book is more influential, portfolio teaching got started MUCH earlier.
- Awkward: "kind of backward-filling in of a gap." Maybe just backfilling.
- What's the order you're putting these lists in: J. Sommers 1989, Camp...
- It's good that you bring in metacognitive knowledge because in much of your lit review you're not really getting at what reflection is (because people generally do not define it well).
- Abrupt shift between the paragarphs "better intervene or evaluate." and "Even as Schon's..."
- Need to define kairos.
- You have a strong understanding of Schon, and that plays out well here and will in your full study.
- Sondra Perl is known for "recursion"; should integrate how recursion is a form of reflection.
- So is what you're looking at going to involve Schon directly? Might indicate that a little more in your lit review--just how significant reflection-in-action is.
- You bring up the idea of reflection in a single essay cycle, quickly, around page 10, outside of reflection in portfolios. That is significant to your study but it's just mentioned briefly in your lit review on page 10.
- Should you italicize kairotic?
- Good emphasis on the differences between Yancey and Schon.
- Awkard: talk tos and talk backs
- Careful saying "Yancey in her misconception of..." That is, she has a different conception of rather than a misconception of.
- Other theorists talk about looping in different ways. You move quickly through looping, but it's rooted in reflection.
- Need a comma somewhere in here? Moon Reflection in Learning 12
- Is there a difference between transactional and dialectical?
- Transactional rhetoric is something that relates to diological reflection or reflexion.
- You write about professional development on page 15. Is this part of the first two "characteristics" dichotomy that you set out in your introduction? Or, do you need to mention information about profdev in the introduction to your chapter?
- Action research is a type of practioner reflection
- Interesting how you're using nursing as a central area for reflection.
- Finally more on metacognition on page 17. Seems to me you're missing a big area with metacognition.
- "This dissertations goal"
- Need more toward the end on what your study encompasses.
Post a Comment