Introduction—A Summary of the Research Problem and Research Question The “felt difficulty” (as Dewey would say) triggering this research inquiry is the ambiguous and problematic nature of rhetorical reflection within the activity of writing. Linda Flower's questions about reflection remain: we don't know what kind of knowledge this kind of strategic reflection generates, and we aren't sure if the activity is significant enough to warrant inclusion in the curriculum (is it just a luxury?) (228, 229). Writing teachers experience uncertainties about the nature and purpose of reflection and difficulties in using it in the classroom. Despite having a rich theory surrounding reflection that posits an alchemical quality onto the act of reflection for mediating learning, action, and problem-solving in positive ways, teachers experience mixed results when using reflection with their students. One hypothesis I have is that the source of our problems with reflection in practice is with our theories of reflection and how they were generated. Most theories of how reflection works have been generated either from speculative theorizing based upon logical deductions from other theories, or from interpreting classroom experiences (and in some cases research) in terms of theories or models (such as Hayes' 1996 model of revision). What is lacking is a theory generated from data, from actual instances of rhetorical reflections, untainted by preconceived theories of what reflection is and should do. My goal, then, with this research is to generate a grounded theory of rhetorical reflection that presents a description and understanding of rhetorical reflection (a theory) that fits with the actual phenomenon and works in practice when put into use. With this grounded theory, we won't “know” if rhetorical reflection works or not; instead, we'll have a better understanding of what rhetorical reflection is and how it works or does not work. This grounded understanding, then, will help guide teachers' practice using rhetorical reflection in the classroom and their own ongoing theorizing about it.
The working Research Question I have for my inquiry is:
How do teacher-prompted rhetorical reflections related to learning and writing practice for freshman writers negotiating the activity of writing?
I should also stress again that this research study is about generating theory—not validating it. The methodologies, methods, goals, and assumptions underlying generating rather than validating theory differ greatly, allowing for much more various and looser sampling and methods for gathering data. In the discussion that follows, I will explicate and examine my research study in more detail. I should mention that I have found the December CCC article “The Importance of Harmony: An Ecology Metaphor for Writing Research” helpful in framing my research, and you will see that I have interpreted these questions with this ecological metaphor in mind.
Locating My Study in Terms of Open and Closed Systems—Phenomenon of Study In this section, I will attempt to describe the local subject of my study in terms of it being a closed or open system. I would have to say that the 2004-2006 First Year Writing Program at Texas Tech University (FYWP at TTU) in its curriculum, writing pedagogy, and writing produced by students is both a closed and open system. This discussion will attempt to map out the features of the writing ecology.
Chris Anson and Clay Spinuzzi offer definitions of closed and open systems that I will then apply to the FYWP. As Clay Spinuzzu describes it, open systems create a productive balance between structure and innovation and uses the analogy of an a starter reef to describe an open system: “An open system is a centrally designed artifact, of course, but it exists as a nexus for workers' innovations, just as an artificial reef functions as a nexus for a developing underwater ecology” (205). Chris Anson describes the activity of writing as an open system: “In the sense in which activity theorist and genre theoriest have described it, writing takes place in an open system: as constantly evolving, contextually mediated, and contextually determined practices, influenced by social and institutional histories, conventions, and expectations” (114). Writing is an open system because its rhetorical context calls on writers to innovate (invent) appropriate solutions to the complex constraints and possibilities within specific writing contexts. Closed systems, as Spinuzzi points out, rigidly try to control work such that innovation is “centrally controlled and fine tuned” (202). The goal of the closed system is to “regulate workers' activities” (204). Spinuzzi's work shows how such closed systems inhibit work since the closed system dictates how workers will meet contingencies by generalizing situations and standardizing ways of meeting situations. Anson describes a closed system in this way: “a closed system is one in which the activities admit little variety, are habituated over long periods of time, and are learned through repeated practice” (115). Anson's overall point in his article is that standardized testing has transformed writing instruction in schools into a closed system with the detrimental effect that “the lack of experience [students are getting] in writing in those larger circles would doom them to adaptive failure” (115).
When we examine the FYWP at TTU 2004-2006, we can see how in many ways it is a closed system which seeks to “regulate workers' activities.” Students are put through a repeated sequence of writing feedback loops to habituate them to learning the practice of writing. Not much choice or innovation is offered to students in their activity of writing. This, I would say, is appropriate for a freshman course with the goal of teaching novice writers. However, the course also acts as an open system, as a kind of starter reef, because it is designed to enter students into writing situations that call on them to make choices and problem solve within the writing process. It is in the Writer's Reviews (rhetorical reflections) in particular where students are asked to engage in “reflective practice” that we can say students have the opportunity to innovate and invent their own practice as they face the complex task of determining their own rhetorical stance.
The chart below provides a map of the “ecology” surrounding Writer's Reviews as rhetorical reflections within the FYWP at TTU:
(chart not included)
According to the Ecological Metaphor for Writing Research, the researcher needs to map this ecology out in three ways:
1.Interdependence—the elements of the activity systematic
2.Feedback—the feedback pathways among the elements of the writing ecosystem
3.Diversity—the affordances that limit or increase the multiplicity of options within the systematic
The above chart does a fairly good job of mapping the different elements within this activity system (interdependence) and providing a start for visualizing the different feedback pathways that feed into writer's reviews. The affordances that limit or increase the options are much harder to map because these affordances may vary by particular writing assignment or by how an individual writer interacts within this activity system. Any one of these various interdependent elements of the ecology surrounding Writing Reviews could influence what the student does in these writing reviews greatly. However, I want to make special note of the importance of the Writing Review Prompt. As Jennifer Moon has noted, what distinguishes different kinds of reflection is not the process or nature of the reflection, but the “framework” or purpose for which it is used: “it is the framework or intention and any guidance toward fulfillment of that intention that is significant in distinguishing one act of reflection from another” (Reflection in Learning 15). The prompt for reflection and how it ties in with the overall writing task and the fulfillment of its goals is in my view the most significant affordance within this system.
Description of Methods To Be Used—Method of Study The goal of my inquiry is to generate a theory of rhetorical reflection. In order to do this, I will employ the methodology of Grounded Theory with its systematic method of coding and analyzing data. Although a full description of Grounded Theory is beyond the scope of this exam, I want to highlight the basic elements of the ecosystem of grounded theory research and its own feedback system for generating theory.
Coding: Open, Axial, Selective
Anselm Strauss and Juliet Corbin define coding as “The Analytic process through which data are fractured, conceptualized, and integrated to form theory” (3). Grounded Theory implements a systematic process of coding data to generate theory. Open Coding involves identifying concepts within the data as well as the properties or characteristics of these concepts and their dimensions (101). These concepts are the “building blocks of theory” and come from the data—not previous theory. The concepts form Categories that stand for phenomena. Axial Coding involves “the process of relating categories to their subcategories” and “linking categories at the level of properties and dimensions” (123). As relationships are determined, the researcher identifies structures and processes. Selective Coding involves the “process of integrating and refining theory” (143). In this coding process, the researcher makes repeated passes through the data to emerge at theory.
Constant Comparative Analysis
The development of concepts occurs through constant comparative analysis with additional data. As Ian Dey summarizes, “Categories (or codes) are to be generated by comparing one incident with another and then by comparing new incidents with emergent categories” (7). The making of constant comparisons (even allowing as Strauss and Corbin do in their version of Grounded Theory for the interplay of data and theory) is a central, “constitutive” feature of this methodology.
Theoretical Sampling
Grounded Theory does not require predetermined and controlled sampling as theory verification methodologies do. Instead, the methodology promotes inquiry wherever the inquiry leads in the service of developing theory. As Glazer and Strauss define it, “Theoretical sampling is the process of data collection for generating theory whereby the analyst jointly collects, codes, and analyzes his data and decides what data to collect next and where to find them, in order to develop his theory as it emerges. This process is controlled by the emerging theory” (45). The researcher continues to analyze different “slices of data” based upon this theoretical sampling until they reach “saturation” of their categories.
Appropriateness of Methods As we can see, Grounded Theory is a highly interpretive process that involves a constant dialectic between concrete data and interpretive insights, trying as best it can to harmonize the conceptual theory in developmental with the specific phenomena of study. It is this quest for harmony in its results that distinguishes Grounded Theory. In the same way that user-centered design with its iterative development process creates better products by trying to make products more useable for users, so the iterative coding process of Grounded Theory through this constant grounding of theory with data enables the development of better theory. Although other methods exist for generating theory (for example by hypothesizing and seeking to reject or confirm this hypothesis either through experimental methods or qualitative methods), Grounded Theory is the most appropriate methodology for generating theory because it is expressly designed for this purpose and an extensive literature exists to assist researchers in pursing its methods. In this way, Grounded Theory as my method for pursing my inquiry harmonizes with my research question and purpose.
Grounded Theory also is an appropriate method specifically for studying writing. Writing as a social phenomena, as a situated activity, and as a process fits as a research subject typically handled by Grounded Theory researchers.
Application of These Methods/Instigating Rigor—the Rhetorical Enactment of Study For me, any application of a research method should be done in a rigorous way. As an archival research study of reflective texts contained in a large database of writing, my sample presents limitations, challenges, and opportunities for how I will apply the methods of Grounded Theory and enact my study.
Limitations:
Grounded Theory appears to be a methodology open to almost any data and form of sampling. Since, however, it studies social phenomena predominantly, it tends to employ qualitative methods of field observation, interviews, focus groups, or textual analysis. It particularly likes to sample data from a variety of contexts to assist in constant comparative analysis. My study, however, will be limited to the textual analysis of subjects from one general context. These limitations could be seen as severe flaws in the enactment of my effort to generate theory.
These are the key questions:
--Does only a textual perspective on this phenomena of study provide too narrow a view into this social setting and action?
--Does limiting the sampling to one group and one setting restrict the free range needed for theoretical sampling and constant comparative analysis?
In answer to the first question, I would say I don't absolutely know the answer. For rigor in the enactment of this archival study, I will need to make a full disclosure of the how this theory was generated so that readers may judge its validity on those merits.
The answer to the second question is a bit easier. Grounded Theory already allows a process of developing theory first in a homogeneous environment. Glazer and Strauss believe the initial establishment of categories and properties are best developed by “minimizing” differences among comparison groups (55). Only after these categories and properties are established within this relatively homogeneous group should the researcher seek to “maximize” the differences among comparative groups to further refine and develop the theory. My study, then, should be clearly presented as developing this first step in generating theory and will provide a clear starting point for continued grounded theory development among different comparison groups.
Challenges:
The actual practice of doing grounded theory analysis appears to be difficult. In particular, the edict to let the data speak and not preconceived theory or expectations of what we want to see in the data presents a large challenge to me since I am so steeped in the theory. To mitigate being “tainted” by theory, I will need to learn the process of coding and be reflexive in how theory is entering into my analysis.
The second challenge has to do with how to conduct a pilot study. I still have ringing in my ears the maxim that “If you don't do a pilot study, then your study is a pilot.” Grounded Theory, however, seems to resist doing a pilot study since it believes in simultaneous sampling and analysis. With Grounded Theory it is like there is no practice match; you are playing for real the minute you begin. Since Grounded Theory operates on the notion of analyzing “slices of data” and constant comparison among groups of data, I believe I could consider my first batch of data to be like a pilot study. It will be important for me after this initial analysis of the first slice of data to evaluate my procedures for conducting grounded theory analysis to identify any needed adjustments.
The last challenge I face in the enactment of my study is the fact that my sample is text contained in a database. My understanding of how a database is structured and operates will influence the options I conceive for following theoretical sampling within this data set. It will be important, then, for me to gain this understanding of the TOPIC database and researching within a database.
Opportunities
The limitation of my sampling to archival texts held within the TOPIC database offers immense possibilities and offsets the limitations of the study to only textual analysis. The vast number and range of texts available in the database is rare for any study of writing. Since the data resides within a database, many different ways to slice the data exist. These two facts open new vistas for theoretical sampling. I could pull a slice of data of new students in 1301 and then compare that data to students at the end of 1302. I could pull data from just women, or just students who fail a writing assignment. The database also contains complete sets of entire writing cycles from drafts, to peer response, to document instructor feedback, to writing reviews, to final grades and assessment. In addition, since all the data is within the database I may be able to do some theoretical sampling using data-mining techniques. The vast opportunities available since the data is in the TOPIC database offer the prospect of reaching “theoretical saturation”--the end point of Grounded Theory research.
What Kinds of Knowledge Will Be Produced and How Might It Impact the Field The “knowledge” my research study will produce will be a theory. But how do we judge a theory? What kind of knowledge does it offer? And how does theory relate to practice?
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). Put in other words, the theory must be true and able to communicate a meaningful understanding of the system of study. For my study, the theory of rhetorical reflection will provide a meaningful description of what happens when student reflect in this way. It will offer significant dynamics, structures, and processes that seem to be at work among the various elements of the system. But it won't offer a static machine-like model. The theory should offer a way to describe how and why rhetorical reflection works or doesn't work. Most of all, it should offer an entry point and navigation points for teachers to construct their own teaching practice for using rhetorical reflection.
Louise Wetherbee Phelps in the last chapter of her book Composition As A Human Science investigates in depth the nature of Theory and its relationship to Practice. She sees a reciprocal, dialectic relationship between Theory and Practice such that each supports the other. Neither does Theory dictate practice, nor does practice ignore Theory as irrelevant: “Theory, disciplined by our own freedom to reflect and to experience, is for composition praxis an enabling fiction” (241). Thus, the knowledge I hope my study creates will be an enabling fiction that assists teachers in inventing their own reflective practice using rhetorical reflection in their specific teaching context.
The implications of my Theory for Composition Studies can be understood by examining another quote from the same chapter by Phelps: “But teachers do not simply enact Theory, they also offer it to students directly as text, comment, or tool, so that students may appropriate it to organize their discourse practices and learning processes” (234). My theory of rhetorical reflection, I hope, will influence student learning and practice. Composition Studies seeks as its highest goal to cultivate not a mere “literate practice,” but a “rhetorical sensitivity” and meta-awareness within “literate acts” (Flower, Petraglia). Rhetorical reflection, as a pedagogically strategic activity, aims to foster this reflective practice in our student writers, and that is why this study will have value for the field.
Works Cited
Anson, Chris M. "Closed Systems and Standardized Writing Tests." College Composition and Communication 60.1 (2008): 113-28.
Dewey, John. How We Think. Boston: DC Heath, 1933.
Dey, Ian. Grounding Grounded Theory: Guidelines for Qualitative Inquiry. San Diego: Academic Press, 1999.
Fleckenstein, Kristie S., Clay Spinuzzi, Rebecca J. Rickly, and Carole Clark Papper. "The Importance of Harmony: An Ecological Metaphor for Writing Research." College Composition and Communication 60.2 (2008): 388-419.
Flower, Linda. The Construction of Negotiated Meaning: A Social Cognitive Theory of Writing. Carbondale: Southern Illinois Press, 1994.
Glaser, Barney G., and Anselm L. Strauss. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1967.
Hayes, John R. "A New Framework for Understanding Cognition and Affect in Writing." The Science of Writing: Theories, Methods, Individual Differences, and Applications. Eds. C. Michael Levy and Sarah Ransdell. Mahwah: Lawrence Erbaum Associates, 1996.
Moon, Jennifer A. Reflection in Learning & Professional Development. London: Kogan Page, 1999.
Petraglia, Joseph. “Is There Life After Process? The Role of Social Scientism in a Changing Discipline.” Post-Process Theory: Beyond the Writing-Process Paradigm. Ed. Thomas Kent. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press: 1999. 49-64.
Phelps, Louise Wetherbee. Composition as a Human Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988.
Spinuzzi, Clay. Tracing Genres through Organizations: A Sociocultural Approach to Information Design. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2003.
Stauss, Anselm, and Juliet Corbin. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 1998.
