Processing the Annual Review

October 1st.
That's the date I need to have a draft of my dissertation done if I want to defend in December. OK. Sounds good to me.

While things are fresh in my mind, I want to record some of the things we talked about at my annual review. Becky was double-booked with another presentation this morning, so she was not there.

Rich gave me the admonition that now is the time to arm wrestle my data and the entire dissertation project and get it done. He complemented me on how I have sought to follow grounded theory's methods and remain open to my data and let it lead me where it will, but that now I need to begin to pull things together. I don't think he is advocating forcing the data, but instead saying that the time of openness and inquiry is passing and it is time to shift into analysis and findings--to develop my theory. I mentioned that while I am still open and inquirying with slice 5, I am pushing hard to get through this slice here in Lubbock and begin the end game of generating my theory. (That will be a subject of a future blog post, I am sure.)

Both Fred and Rich are interested the deep picture of what is going on for students within a writing assignment that my analysis is revealing. I showed them my refined version of my categories, properties, and dimensions and I used the analogy of a rubics cube to describe how these different categories and other elements fall into and out of alignment and even embed within each other. What I am gratified to hear is that the language I have chosen for my categories (fitting in bounds, essay success, coming to know, revision goals) were used by both Fred and Rich, and they seemed ok with them. They seem to grasp the concept and phenomena that the terms describe. That's good. I have been so close to these terms and using them so much that I am losing a sense of whether they work or not.

Interestingly, we had some discussion about time (or timing). Fred pointed out the diachronic and synchronic aspects of my study. I think what he is interested in is the diachronic aspect  of my analysis--looking at the writing review in the context of the larger essay or draft cycle (and even the semester). Both Fred and Rich think I am digging into a perspective on student writing that has not been done very much, and it provides a unique perspective. What is often revealed are mismatches and discordances in the "system." I had just been looking at some of Spinuzzi's stuff on activity systems, so I referred to this classroom context of writing instruction as a kind of activity system. I spoke of a few cases I had seen where students misinterpreted the assignment, DI feedback did not critique following the assignment criteria, and the reflection was a total failure in terms of what we theoretically believe reflection will do (the value-added assumption of reflection). Fred referred to this phenomenon as "missing each other in the night" and as the "dark underbelly of composition." Mismatches and discordances occur due to poor views of essay success. So, Fred said, this research shows the importance of providing clear and available as well as concrete and detailed representations of essay success.

 I had a few excerpts from Writing Reviews that we looked at together, and I narrated what I saw going on using the language of my categories. A couple of things came up from this discussion. I wanted to show cases where resolutions/goals were made and also instances where concrete steps were proposed to follow, but the student did not follow them in the next draft. In these WR, you can see instances of "coming to know" but then that knowledge does not extend (or transfer) into changes in the draft. Rich spoke of the importance of kairos or timing--that perhaps the time gap between the moments of realization and then working on the draft again led to unfulfilled resolutions. The moment of the coming to know should then be immediately followed by the act of application. He spoke of his believe in inserting the "teaching" of essay success right at the moment of realization and application and how that is what he has been wanting to create.

Fred also had some interesting things to say about the strategies these students were coming up with as their revision goals. He called them soft strategies. They mimiced the language of teachers using the words, but these were really like weasel words. They are really so vague that they are really expressing a true understanding at all. He mentioned S. I. Hayakoka's Language, Thought, and Action as having discussed this kind of use of language. 

I had a few questions regarding my lit review and how I had framed my inquiry. Question 1 was whether linking my inquiry back to Young and his work on invention made sense. I want to anchor my inquiry into the questions Young had about invention back in 1978, showing how my inquiry has roots in a central concern of our field. They both thought it sounded ok.

The second and third questions focused on terms I had used to describe the gaps or problems in our field's understanding of reflection that in a sense justify my own inquiry. The first gap is what I call the value-added assumption of reflection and how we uncritically think that reflection will provide "value" or a benefit to students (and it is a certain kind of benefit). This gap and term for it seemed to check out ok too. I also think that our view of reflection is influenced by portfolios. We see reflection as a post-task constructivists activity, and don't conceive it in in-task terms. I call this the "portfolio-centric view of reflection." They both thought it sounded good too and rang true.

I think this about covers what we discussed. I know I am missing things. They both often referred to "this is the kind of thing to put in your chapter 5." I can't say right now I saw all the things that they did for what could go in there, but I think I can return to these possibilities when I get to chapter 5.

I still have a long way to go, but I am well-positioned to complete this project. But I will have to do some arm wrestling to get it done.