What's important about Fauset for the understanding of the History of Rhetoric?
Perhaps Fauset was not in any given rhetorical act doing anything radically out of the norm for African American uplift rhetoric. What seems unique about her upon a little bit of reflection is her rhetorical flexibility and her wide ranging spheres of influence. Is it important that any one person embody all pieces of a movement? I don't know. But she was at the literary vanguard, making many of the literary accomplishments of the HR possible. She was participating in the politics of respectability. She was a member of the Talented Tenth. She taught in school and through Crisis as, in Ida B. Wells' terms "good newspapers entering regularly the homes of our people in every state could do more to bring about [justice] than any agency . . . they would be the teachers to those who had been deprived of school advantages" (1893). She spoke publicly, recorded major race rights events journalistically. Perhaps the title could be "A Promiscuous Rhetoric: Jessie Redmon Fauset's Rhetorical Fight for Uplift on All Fronts"
Perhaps I could explore this as evidence that she embraced propaganda: get into people's homes and alter minds. Yet she didn't have much access to white minds. Hmm.
Friday, April 2, 2010
Friday, February 1, 2008
Overlaying your responses with additional specs
Take a topic that you would like to study, and, using the four combinations of knowledge claims, strategies of inquiry,and methods in Figure 1.2, discuss how the topic might be studied using each of the combinations.
[Some of] Our Research Questions:
- What common stasis points (stopping points or points of critical tension) do students identify when they reflect on their learning process in the weekly CIQ (a formative assessment tool)?
- Upon recognizing and naming these patterns, how can instructors use them to clarify and improve “critically reflective” learning?
Quantitative Research:
We could set up an experiment in which we had a very tightly controlled task (I'm thinking of something like having all of the students do a basic rhetorical analysis of a common text). In one class we would use the CIQ throughout the process of teaching and helping the students complete the tightly controlled task. The other class would be the control group and the teacher would have to be different because she might bring in her knowledge from the other group's CIQs. Then, we would compare both the process and the outcome differences. Perhaps this experiment might involve video taping the classes for that small segment of the course, as well.
So our operating hypotheses for the above scenario include:
- Students using the CIQ will discuss their learning process about the tightly controlled task (e.g., the rhetorical analysis) in their CIQs.
- Students will experience stasis points.
- Upon examining the data (i.e., the CIQs) the instructor will be able to identify some patterns and/or addressable insights regarding the students' learning processes.
- Instructors employing the CIQ-analysis method described above will in some way be able to guide her students through the task more effectively.
- Evidence of this effectiveness will be found in the quality of the completed task (e.g., the rhetorical analysis).
- Evidence of improvements in self-conscious/critically reflective approaches to the task will be found somewhere also? (Perhaps in an additional artifact requested of both classes?)
Qualitative research:
What we're planning to do: continuing collecting the CIQs weekly, use grounded theory to try to develop categories for the types of reflection we see emerging in both teacher and student responses. Develop a theory of the range of responses possible and think about potential methods for moving students and teachers deeper into reflective practice.
Here's how we've explained our grounded theory so far:
The "theory" we are seeking might be better described as a "vocabulary"; i.e., we're trying to establish a precise set of terms that describe the moves students make (and see themselves making) as learners. Beyond the emergent categories, we will refine our understandings of the differences between reflection and critical reflection.
Cresswell combines constructivist knowledge claims with ethnography and discusses this approach in terms of "identifying a culture-sharing group and studying how it developed shared patterns of behavior over time" (21), which reminds me to pause and perhaps consider how we're identifying the "shared culture" of our participants. These are undergraduate writing students . . . what other qualities constitute their "shared culture"? And for the purposes of our study, what attributes are most important? For example, I'll go out on a limb, here, and assume that your students, like mine, are mostly Caucasian. But our study isn't about "Caucasian learning styles" or some such. (I really don't want to get all "Bell-Curvey" here--egads! So I'm wondering whether we're proposing that our students' presence in our undergraduate writing classes constitutes a "shared culture." I suppose this is what nearly all qualitative composition pedagogy studies assume. So maybe this questioning isn't overly important. Nonetheless, since we're deadline in some respects with cognition and problem-solving I'm tempted to at least pause before confidently asserting that traceable patterns among our undergraduate writing students are representative of patterns to be found among those in classes elsewhere.
Next, Cresswell combines participatory knowledge claims with narrative design and open-ended interviewing. Participatory knowledge claims is closest to our approach. Cresswell's example (it's weirdly formatted as a summary of all those approaches) regards studying oppression. I'm unable to extract any new, interesting nuggets at this point. I'm uninterested in explicating "oppression" in our use of CIQs. I get it. Don't feel like going there would be productiive right now.
Mixed Methods:
I suspect a sequential method might be best for us. Once we get through the qualitative stage and have some categories, we might be able to set up an experiment testing the methods we've developed for developing student-teacher reflection. This makes sense to me, too, in the sense that grounded theory doesn't seem like a good fit for a concurrent qualitative study, in which, presumably, you'd have to really know what you were looking for.
Transformative procedures might have been a possibility if we were planning on applying a particular theory from the beginning; for instance, if we had decided to do a positionality study, we might have been able to take a single theory and do both a qualitative and quantitative approach.
Yes, returning to our questions:
- What common stasis points (stopping points or points of critical tension) do students identify when they reflect on their learning process in the weekly CIQ (a formative assessment tool)?
- Upon recognizing and naming these patterns, how can instructors use them to clarify and improve “critically reflective” learning?
. . . we're ultimately seeking a way to generalize our results to a larger population of students and teachers. The terminology itself (whatever categories we're able to identify) will be less important than the circumstances each term describes, and then the instructor's ability to name it and engage it with her students.
[Some of] Our Research Questions:
- What common stasis points (stopping points or points of critical tension) do students identify when they reflect on their learning process in the weekly CIQ (a formative assessment tool)?
- Upon recognizing and naming these patterns, how can instructors use them to clarify and improve “critically reflective” learning?
Quantitative Research:
We could set up an experiment in which we had a very tightly controlled task (I'm thinking of something like having all of the students do a basic rhetorical analysis of a common text). In one class we would use the CIQ throughout the process of teaching and helping the students complete the tightly controlled task. The other class would be the control group and the teacher would have to be different because she might bring in her knowledge from the other group's CIQs. Then, we would compare both the process and the outcome differences. Perhaps this experiment might involve video taping the classes for that small segment of the course, as well.
So our operating hypotheses for the above scenario include:
- Students using the CIQ will discuss their learning process about the tightly controlled task (e.g., the rhetorical analysis) in their CIQs.
- Students will experience stasis points.
- Upon examining the data (i.e., the CIQs) the instructor will be able to identify some patterns and/or addressable insights regarding the students' learning processes.
- Instructors employing the CIQ-analysis method described above will in some way be able to guide her students through the task more effectively.
- Evidence of this effectiveness will be found in the quality of the completed task (e.g., the rhetorical analysis).
- Evidence of improvements in self-conscious/critically reflective approaches to the task will be found somewhere also? (Perhaps in an additional artifact requested of both classes?)
Qualitative research:
What we're planning to do: continuing collecting the CIQs weekly, use grounded theory to try to develop categories for the types of reflection we see emerging in both teacher and student responses. Develop a theory of the range of responses possible and think about potential methods for moving students and teachers deeper into reflective practice.
Here's how we've explained our grounded theory so far:
The "theory" we are seeking might be better described as a "vocabulary"; i.e., we're trying to establish a precise set of terms that describe the moves students make (and see themselves making) as learners. Beyond the emergent categories, we will refine our understandings of the differences between reflection and critical reflection.
Cresswell combines constructivist knowledge claims with ethnography and discusses this approach in terms of "identifying a culture-sharing group and studying how it developed shared patterns of behavior over time" (21), which reminds me to pause and perhaps consider how we're identifying the "shared culture" of our participants. These are undergraduate writing students . . . what other qualities constitute their "shared culture"? And for the purposes of our study, what attributes are most important? For example, I'll go out on a limb, here, and assume that your students, like mine, are mostly Caucasian. But our study isn't about "Caucasian learning styles" or some such. (I really don't want to get all "Bell-Curvey" here--egads! So I'm wondering whether we're proposing that our students' presence in our undergraduate writing classes constitutes a "shared culture." I suppose this is what nearly all qualitative composition pedagogy studies assume. So maybe this questioning isn't overly important. Nonetheless, since we're deadline in some respects with cognition and problem-solving I'm tempted to at least pause before confidently asserting that traceable patterns among our undergraduate writing students are representative of patterns to be found among those in classes elsewhere.
Next, Cresswell combines participatory knowledge claims with narrative design and open-ended interviewing. Participatory knowledge claims is closest to our approach. Cresswell's example (it's weirdly formatted as a summary of all those approaches) regards studying oppression. I'm unable to extract any new, interesting nuggets at this point. I'm uninterested in explicating "oppression" in our use of CIQs. I get it. Don't feel like going there would be productiive right now.
Mixed Methods:
I suspect a sequential method might be best for us. Once we get through the qualitative stage and have some categories, we might be able to set up an experiment testing the methods we've developed for developing student-teacher reflection. This makes sense to me, too, in the sense that grounded theory doesn't seem like a good fit for a concurrent qualitative study, in which, presumably, you'd have to really know what you were looking for.
Transformative procedures might have been a possibility if we were planning on applying a particular theory from the beginning; for instance, if we had decided to do a positionality study, we might have been able to take a single theory and do both a qualitative and quantitative approach.
Yes, returning to our questions:
- What common stasis points (stopping points or points of critical tension) do students identify when they reflect on their learning process in the weekly CIQ (a formative assessment tool)?
- Upon recognizing and naming these patterns, how can instructors use them to clarify and improve “critically reflective” learning?
. . . we're ultimately seeking a way to generalize our results to a larger population of students and teachers. The terminology itself (whatever categories we're able to identify) will be less important than the circumstances each term describes, and then the instructor's ability to name it and engage it with her students.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Cresswell's writing exercise #2 on pg. 24 (using our current project as the topic).
Take a topic that you would like to study, and, using the four combinations of knowledge claims, strategies of inquiry,and methods in Figure 1.2, discuss how the topic might be studied using each of the combinations.
Quant research:
We could set up an experiment in which we had a very tightly controlled task (I'm thinking of something like having all of the students do a basic rhetorical analysis of a common text). In one class we would use the CIQ throughout the process of teaching and helping the students complete the tightly controlled task. The other class would be the control group and the teacher would have to be different because she might bring in her knowledge from the other group's CIQs. Then, we would compare both the process and the outcome differences. Perhaps this experiment might involve video taping the classes for that small segment of the course, as well.We'd want to both watch for apparent stasis points and see how students identify them. This would allow us to talk about how different our perceptions of stases are from their perceptions.
Qualitative research: (constructivist)
What we're planning to do: continuing collecting the CIQs weekly, use grounded theory to try to develop categories for the types of stasis points we see emerging in both teacher and student responses. Develop a theory of the range of responses possible and think about potential methods for moving students and teachers deeper into reflective practice and beyond a variety of stases.
Qualitative research: (emancipatory)
If we were looking to see in what ways oppression plays a role in the development of stasis points in the classroom, we would almost certainly have to have an outsider conduct the interviews. An unbiased interviewer, like, perhaps, my research assistant Nurjahan, would have to conduct individual interviews with students, using open-ended questions. But I think this approach would be almost impossible, unless we really didn't look at the data until after our students were pretty far away from our course and not planning on ever taking a course from us again. I just don't see this method working for our pedagogical study. It would be better if we weren't study teachers and students.
Mixed Methods:
I suspect a sequential method might be best for us. Once we get through the qualitative stage and have some categories, we might be able to set up an experiment testing the methods we've developed for developing student-teacher reflection. This makes sense to me, too, in the sense that grounded theory doesn't seem like a good fit for a concurrent qualitative study, in which, presumably, you'd have to really know what you were looking for.
Transformative procedures might have been a possibility if we were planning on applying a particular theory from the beginning; for instance, if we had decided to do a positionality study, we might have been able to take a single theory and do both a qualitative and quantitative approach.
I could also see doing two qualitative approaches to answer our question: What common stasis points (stopping points or points of critical tension) do students identify when they reflect on their learning process in the weekly CIQ (a formative assessment tool)? Upon recognizing and naming these patterns, how can instructors use them to clarify and improve “critically reflective” learning?
We could use grounded theory first and then surveys to see if students self-identify which kinds of stases they feel most often and which they feel are most difficult to overcome, for instance.
Quant research:
We could set up an experiment in which we had a very tightly controlled task (I'm thinking of something like having all of the students do a basic rhetorical analysis of a common text). In one class we would use the CIQ throughout the process of teaching and helping the students complete the tightly controlled task. The other class would be the control group and the teacher would have to be different because she might bring in her knowledge from the other group's CIQs. Then, we would compare both the process and the outcome differences. Perhaps this experiment might involve video taping the classes for that small segment of the course, as well.We'd want to both watch for apparent stasis points and see how students identify them. This would allow us to talk about how different our perceptions of stases are from their perceptions.
Qualitative research: (constructivist)
What we're planning to do: continuing collecting the CIQs weekly, use grounded theory to try to develop categories for the types of stasis points we see emerging in both teacher and student responses. Develop a theory of the range of responses possible and think about potential methods for moving students and teachers deeper into reflective practice and beyond a variety of stases.
Qualitative research: (emancipatory)
If we were looking to see in what ways oppression plays a role in the development of stasis points in the classroom, we would almost certainly have to have an outsider conduct the interviews. An unbiased interviewer, like, perhaps, my research assistant Nurjahan, would have to conduct individual interviews with students, using open-ended questions. But I think this approach would be almost impossible, unless we really didn't look at the data until after our students were pretty far away from our course and not planning on ever taking a course from us again. I just don't see this method working for our pedagogical study. It would be better if we weren't study teachers and students.
Mixed Methods:
I suspect a sequential method might be best for us. Once we get through the qualitative stage and have some categories, we might be able to set up an experiment testing the methods we've developed for developing student-teacher reflection. This makes sense to me, too, in the sense that grounded theory doesn't seem like a good fit for a concurrent qualitative study, in which, presumably, you'd have to really know what you were looking for.
Transformative procedures might have been a possibility if we were planning on applying a particular theory from the beginning; for instance, if we had decided to do a positionality study, we might have been able to take a single theory and do both a qualitative and quantitative approach.
I could also see doing two qualitative approaches to answer our question: What common stasis points (stopping points or points of critical tension) do students identify when they reflect on their learning process in the weekly CIQ (a formative assessment tool)? Upon recognizing and naming these patterns, how can instructors use them to clarify and improve “critically reflective” learning?
We could use grounded theory first and then surveys to see if students self-identify which kinds of stases they feel most often and which they feel are most difficult to overcome, for instance.
Wee change to the CIQ document
I've decided to write in the word "Explain" at the end of question #4 to see if we can get more juice from that question. Are you OK with that?
(Here's the wording:
What material you read, gathered for a project, or discussed in class this week engaged your thinking most? Explain.)
Since I've already photocopied a zillion forms for this semester I'll ask them to write the word "Explain" there on their sheets each time I distribute them and hopefully that will further reinforce my request for more info there.
--> Another option might be: And how so? Do you like that better than "Explain."?
(Here's the wording:
What material you read, gathered for a project, or discussed in class this week engaged your thinking most? Explain.)
Since I've already photocopied a zillion forms for this semester I'll ask them to write the word "Explain" there on their sheets each time I distribute them and hopefully that will further reinforce my request for more info there.
--> Another option might be: And how so? Do you like that better than "Explain."?
CIQ procedure
Here's a sample procedure to discuss:
(1) We each distribute the CIQ during the final 10 minutes of the final class of the week.
--> For me this would be Thursday of my T/Th class.
--> Question: Do we want to make this the final 10 minutes, or do we want to make it something like 15 and reserve the final 5 minutes for closing announcements or some such--the idea being to insert some sort of closing ritual after the CIQ and thereby make it less likely that the CIQ will be the exit door to class.
Perhaps it's as simple as saying something like: To try to ensure that I don't shortchange the CIQ time and we don't have to rush through it, I'll try to stop fifteen minutes before the end of the class, hand out the forms, we'll all write, and then we'll do final announcements in the last three to five minutes of class.
(2) Before distributing the CIQ we ask the students to recollect, aloud, what we did this week.
I had gone to the reminder method because I see it as pedagogically helpful on some level. To be reminded is to move out of the present moment. Otherwise we do get too many responses about the current class (which will continue to happen to a certain extent, anyway). However, I have done both the oral reminder and, in the last class, I just had a list of items up on the computer. You're right that, to a degree, the reminding creates the categories in their minds, categories of activities, anyway, and if we type it as i did last week, our language is likely to dictate, so I think I'm inclined away from that method. This is complicated because we want to study their language for this first study, so I think if we do have reminders, they should come from the students.
I think we should do the oral reminder method, asking students to recollect aloud.
(1) We each distribute the CIQ during the final 10 minutes of the final class of the week.
--> For me this would be Thursday of my T/Th class.
--> Question: Do we want to make this the final 10 minutes, or do we want to make it something like 15 and reserve the final 5 minutes for closing announcements or some such--the idea being to insert some sort of closing ritual after the CIQ and thereby make it less likely that the CIQ will be the exit door to class.
Perhaps it's as simple as saying something like: To try to ensure that I don't shortchange the CIQ time and we don't have to rush through it, I'll try to stop fifteen minutes before the end of the class, hand out the forms, we'll all write, and then we'll do final announcements in the last three to five minutes of class.
(2) Before distributing the CIQ we ask the students to recollect, aloud, what we did this week.
I had gone to the reminder method because I see it as pedagogically helpful on some level. To be reminded is to move out of the present moment. Otherwise we do get too many responses about the current class (which will continue to happen to a certain extent, anyway). However, I have done both the oral reminder and, in the last class, I just had a list of items up on the computer. You're right that, to a degree, the reminding creates the categories in their minds, categories of activities, anyway, and if we type it as i did last week, our language is likely to dictate, so I think I'm inclined away from that method. This is complicated because we want to study their language for this first study, so I think if we do have reminders, they should come from the students.
I think we should do the oral reminder method, asking students to recollect aloud.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Revision to #3
3) How do you plan to conduct your investigation? What sources of evidence do you plan to examine? What methods will you employ to gather and make sense of this evidence?
Our Approach to this Study
We have adopted a "grounded theory" approach to qualitative research, which Strauss & Corbin define as one that entails using multiple stages of data collection in order to derive a general theory that explains "a process, action, or interaction grounded in the views of participants in a study." The "theory" we are seeking might be better described as a "vocabulary"; i.e., we're trying to establish a precise set of terms that describe the moves students make (and see themselves making) as learners in our courses.
Sources of Evidence
We are collecting data from multiple sections of undergraduate research and writing courses taught by Drs. Hessler and Taggart at Oklahoma City University and at North Dakota State University. Our primary tool has been a modified version of Brookfield's "Critical Incident Questionnaire" (CIQ), completed by our students (and ourselves) each week, reporting specific moments of engagement and disengagement with the work of the course. We have been gathering these responses for over two years.
Additionally, as of spring 2008 we are asking students to contribute their Learning Portfolios to our study--in which students reflect on the processes and products of their work.
Methods for Examining the Evidence
As part of our ongoing pedagogy, we periodically summarize CIQ trends and discuss them with our students in class. For the larger research study, we hope to trace patterns among the student responses--common ways that students describe their experiences of problem-solving during our courses. For us, "problem-solving" includes a wide range of activities, from confronting an unfamiliar or frustrating concept to overcoming interpersonal conflicts as they collaborate within a research team. After categorizing and naming these strategies, we will consult with students for their assistance in (a) clarifying and employing our shared vocabulary for discussing the learning process, and (b) continuing to fine-tune our reflective-writing tools to help students to more clearly articulate their experiences.
At this point, we are still considering options for using the portfolios to supplement the data gathered from the CIQs--and hope to consult the CASTL mentors for their recommendations.
Our Approach to this Study
We have adopted a "grounded theory" approach to qualitative research, which Strauss & Corbin define as one that entails using multiple stages of data collection in order to derive a general theory that explains "a process, action, or interaction grounded in the views of participants in a study." The "theory" we are seeking might be better described as a "vocabulary"; i.e., we're trying to establish a precise set of terms that describe the moves students make (and see themselves making) as learners in our courses.
Sources of Evidence
We are collecting data from multiple sections of undergraduate research and writing courses taught by Drs. Hessler and Taggart at Oklahoma City University and at North Dakota State University. Our primary tool has been a modified version of Brookfield's "Critical Incident Questionnaire" (CIQ), completed by our students (and ourselves) each week, reporting specific moments of engagement and disengagement with the work of the course. We have been gathering these responses for over two years.
Additionally, as of spring 2008 we are asking students to contribute their Learning Portfolios to our study--in which students reflect on the processes and products of their work.
Methods for Examining the Evidence
As part of our ongoing pedagogy, we periodically summarize CIQ trends and discuss them with our students in class. For the larger research study, we hope to trace patterns among the student responses--common ways that students describe their experiences of problem-solving during our courses. For us, "problem-solving" includes a wide range of activities, from confronting an unfamiliar or frustrating concept to overcoming interpersonal conflicts as they collaborate within a research team. After categorizing and naming these strategies, we will consult with students for their assistance in (a) clarifying and employing our shared vocabulary for discussing the learning process, and (b) continuing to fine-tune our reflective-writing tools to help students to more clearly articulate their experiences.
At this point, we are still considering options for using the portfolios to supplement the data gathered from the CIQs--and hope to consult the CASTL mentors for their recommendations.
New Version of 2
To apply to be a Scholar, please describe your SoTL work-in-progress in 750 to 1,250 words, by responding to the following five questions:
1) What is the central question, issue, or problem you plan to explore in your proposed work?
What common stasis points seem to emerge in the weekly CIQ (a formative assessment tool), and how can teachers begin to use a recognition of these patterns to engage in candid and productive dialogue and interaction with students about course goals, content, and approaches?
2) Why is your central question, issue, or problem important to you and to others who might benefit from or build on your findings? Please note that the goal of the scholarship of teaching and learning is not simply to improve your own teaching, but also to contribute to the practice and profession of teaching more broadly.
Reflection and critical reflection are catch words in education generally. But we know too little about how teachers and students create, interpret, and interact through reflection generally and specifically through the kinds of on-the-spot reflections that emerge in quick formative assessments like the one we use in this study. We know too little about the differences between reflection and critical reflection and too little about how to move students from basic reflection to strategic problem solving. If teachers can come to recognize the common moves of on-the-spot reflection/reactions to pedagogical approaches and content and can start to see patterns in student-teacher action and reaction, we can better respond to these reflections and can more fully intervene in students’ varied learning paths.
1) What is the central question, issue, or problem you plan to explore in your proposed work?
What common stasis points seem to emerge in the weekly CIQ (a formative assessment tool), and how can teachers begin to use a recognition of these patterns to engage in candid and productive dialogue and interaction with students about course goals, content, and approaches?
2) Why is your central question, issue, or problem important to you and to others who might benefit from or build on your findings? Please note that the goal of the scholarship of teaching and learning is not simply to improve your own teaching, but also to contribute to the practice and profession of teaching more broadly.
Reflection and critical reflection are catch words in education generally. But we know too little about how teachers and students create, interpret, and interact through reflection generally and specifically through the kinds of on-the-spot reflections that emerge in quick formative assessments like the one we use in this study. We know too little about the differences between reflection and critical reflection and too little about how to move students from basic reflection to strategic problem solving. If teachers can come to recognize the common moves of on-the-spot reflection/reactions to pedagogical approaches and content and can start to see patterns in student-teacher action and reaction, we can better respond to these reflections and can more fully intervene in students’ varied learning paths.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
