102 Fieldnotes

Monday, Feb. 28, 2005 (2:37)

I was high energy today, but my students were not. I wonder if I am speaking to them of material that is just painfully obvious to the whole world, except, of course, me. I was trying to draw connections between the assignment we had completed in class (writing about place, and creating a sense of that place), the reading I had assigned (an ethnography -- strike a pose), and what they are doing (fieldnotes and research into a subculture). I was trying to show them how Dowling, the author of Strike a Pose developed a sense of place in her first paragraph, and what her "message" was in her description of place, the same thing they did last Friday in writing a description of a place they know well, and developing, by the details and how they are used, the significance of the place.

The students did a fairly nice job with this, and I asked them to read through their peers' work and identify the significance of each place described. So, for example, Amy described a wicker chair she used to sit on as a child; she described all the things she did on this wicker chair, like look out the window, read, play with dolls, relax, and she created with that chair a sense of the place as refuge. It was clear that she was arguing, by extension, everyone needs a space to call their own, a "room of their own," or wicker chair of their own. It was brief, but the message was clear.

I want them to understand that in writing (ethnography), it is not enough to simply describe, but you have to make those details do some work in developing some broader, more generalizable meaning. So, if Stephanie writes about Harley riders, she can't just describe South Side bar where they hang out, but look at the place, note the surroundings, and then try to find some unity within those descriptions, and make that description say something additional about Harley riders, and what the space they inhabit says about them.

I tried to connect these things by showing how Dowlings description of the mall revealed a space that is overwhelming and busy, sensory overload, and how the "Photo Fantasies" shop used a similar tactic to lure its customers in.

Whatever. Am I foolish? Do all teachers feel so alone? I used to be so certain of myself and what I was doing in each class, but it seems the more I know and understand about teaching, about my subject matter, about the students I teach, the less secure and comfortable I get in teaching them. This is a crisis of conscience and confidence. You know what this feels like . . . student-teaching in Apple Valley. These kids didn't give a shit. Most of them came from upper-middle class or upper class homes, and many had this sense that the world would be kind to them regardless of whether they did their work or not. My students do not stem from the same SES, but they seem to have the same attitude.

I don't want to complain about my students; I need to do something differently to either engage them, or make myself care less. My office mate says it's the nature of my discipline. They all think they can write, or have had some experience with writing before, and it's all the same damn thing so why listen, whereas, with him, his students do not know philosophy prior to coming to his class, and they have had no experience with it, and, certainly, do not think they can DO philosophy, like they can, at least minimally, DO writing.

I don't know.

"Unplayed Tapes" -- Fishman and McCarthy

Wow, I'm through the first two chapters of this book, and it's an excellent read.

The first chapter divides the epistemological foundation for teacher-research into two camps: Stenhousian and Berthoffian. Stenhouse relies on a systematicc approach to teacher-research that seems somewhat based, or, at least, seeks affirmation from qualitative researchers, while Berthoff, like Descarte, believes that knowledge and research begin and end with self, and personal experience that requires no additional information (e.g. Lit Reviews).

Wow, I am probably on the side of Stenhouse, even though intellectually, I agree with Berthoff. When I was in grada school, I wrote an essay called . . . man, my brain is really not working, ahh, yes, "The Presence of Others: Voice, Audience, and E-mail," in which I analyzed my students' developing voice and conceptions of audience as a result of the e-mail listserv I was using with the class. I showed by using student texts their developing voice and understanding of audience in writing. I had a few references -- John Dewey's creative imagination and Toulmin's model for argumentation -- but most of it was based on my own experience with this class and these writers. I presented the article at a conference in Wyoming, and submitted the essay to Teaching English in the Community College, this was for their issue on the use of technology in the comp class, and I received a personal note back from the editor suggesting I look at a number of different references. I was disappointed, and, sadly, I misplaced that handwritten note from the editor, but I learned at that moment that in order to get published, I need a lit review. I internalized this ideal immediately. Berthoff, I think, would disagree.

In chapter 2, Fishman discusses his development as a Berthoffian zealot. His experience in using writing in his philosophy classroom is helpful for me. Why? Damn it Jane, I still feel sometimes guilty if I am allowing my students time to write in class; I feel like I am not doing my job. I feel like they just see the activity as a rote sort of learning activity - a hoop the professor wants them to jumpt through. It's good to hear Fishman using the same sorts of writing activities in his classes to try to get his students to think critically about an issue or text. I sometimes think my students are incapable of thinking critically about anything, whether it be a reading, writing they have completed, or even their own life! and that makes the activity a waste of time.

Teaching's a hard job.

Jane Says . . .

"I am puzzled by your statement that a reader can't rate acontextual writing. (Maybe that "a" is a typo?)"

No, here's my thinking -- a reader will find it difficult to rate "real" writing outside the context within which it was written. Here's my experience with the issue. As part of SWIC's outcomes assessment initiative, I was on the cmte tasked with developing some way of assessing (efficiently) the writing SWIC students are doing across the curriculum.

Our first task was to develop some understanding of how we are defining good writing. We spent a great deal of time developing a workable rubric to evaluate writing across the curriculum. Then we collected essays from different disciplines, asked for volunteer readers, did a few norming sessions, and then evaluated papers in earnest.

Let me make a long story short -- we simplified the grading rubric to a bare-bones version, asked the classroom teachers for the assignment and grading criteria, but it was still difficult for us to assess the writing other than on a very basic level -- does it have a purpose, a sense of structure, adhere to conventions, etc, but when it came to making fine-tuned sorts of decisions about the quality of thinking / purpose, or whether a piece of writing was organized well, it was very difficult because we were evaluating the writing outside of the context within which it was written.

For example, we all know teachers who privilege obedience over substance, and we were given papers from teachers such as this. The teacher said in the instructions the lab report should be a single paragraph, which is just wrong and bull-headed, so we were given student samples that were three pages long, with no paragraph breaks, as the teacaher had requested; however, there were other students, recognizing this is simple wrong rhetorically, who shaped their writing rhetorically. As a group, we struggled with how to rate such writing.

Or, worse yet, were papers written for a math class. These papers were explications and applications of mathematical and geometric principles; there were few of us who knew whether the quality of thought displayed was acceptable or not -- acontextual.

I think I read an article by Peter Elbow, no, wait, it was an article by Yancey about the development of big-picture, insitutional and for purposes of placement, writing assessment. She broke it into three stages: the first stage was indirect assessment, based on grammar tests. This is highly reliable, but of questionable validity. The second stage attempted direct assessment, but had difficulty with reliability. So, raters were assessing real writing, but had consistency rates slightly better than chimpanzees. The third stage, spearheaded by Elbow and Belanoff attempted to ensure validity, measuring writing directly, while improving relaibaility, and their solution was to assess writing contextually, while the raters, classroom teachers, did so collectively, thereby, negotiating the "community standard" and improving reliability.

This is why I say it's impossible to assess writing, well, outside of the context within which is was written.

Jane Says (Have you heard of Jane's Addicition, the band? They have a song called "Jane Says" and everytime I write that, I have this melody playing in my head):

"With the emphasis on high stakes testing today, I'm inclined to consider the timed essay test (or what we call "constructed responses. . . .)" a specific mode of writing with its own peculiar context -- an arbitrary prompt, an artificial time limit, and no obvious purpose or audience other than to convince the reader that you know how to write. This IS, in fact, a situation that occurs on occasion even for adults (e.g. some job applications), and I don't object to having school and college writers practice it.The problem comes when we make the assumption that performance on this mode of writing is representative of a writer's competence in any other mode.What do you think?"

I agree with you that this sort of writing is out there, and students should understand when they are presented with this sort of situation what's expected of them and what they need to do. My assumption, not always correct, is that most students know how to do this already, namely because they been asked to do it many times in their past as writers. Like the five-paragraph theme, most of my students adopt the sort of stance required of these high-stakes timed tests in all their writing situations. This is writing that the writer has little relationship to, or with the ideas and materials presented, and this is what they try to do when they get into college. In some cases, this sort of writing is re-emphaized for them in other classes they are taking outside the English department, and they are shocked to find that in our classes, they cannot get away with this sort of writing. It's really a form of non-writing rather than writing.

Damn it, I can't think today -- somebody, my brain is resisting me, calls this sort of writing THEMEWRITING, and it is characterized by form (5PT) and content (empty). Okay, got it, William Coles.

I think, again, students need to be able to recognize the difference between the high-stakes sorts of standardized test writing and "real" writing, and be able to recognize both, know when to do each, and what is required of each.

Triangulation Exercise

Mini-Triangulation Exercise

1. QUESTION:

MODE OF INFORMATION TRANSMISSION / DELIVERY / CONSTRUCTION

A. Evocation

How is information generated in class? (Lecture, lecture-discussion, student construction, groups)

In what forms is the information generated and presented? Oral, written, kinesthetic, other?

B. Response and Interpretation

<>
What role does the information system play -- to instruct? to generate instruction? to create dialectical tension?

What assumptions about information dominate (positivist, constructivist, other)?

C. Criticism <>
How does the mode of information affect learning?

2. METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION:

Fieldnotes.

3. SAMPLE OF RAW DATA

Conference schedule / class schedule, Prof. takes care of administrative duties, ask for questions.

Eye contact . . . lots . . . involving everyone, can’t tune out, be lazy, student will get caught.

Prof. presents analysis of feedback / survey, a model for class’s activity.

Maria asks, “Can you repeat?”

Prof. complies willingly.

Prof asks for additional dialogue / response.

Michael responds, Prof. “uh-huh, uh-huh, uh-huh,” welcoming contribution, lending credence to speaker. Prof. restates Michael’s comment, asks, “What are the strengths and limitations?”

Michael notes 3 perspectives: Teacher, Group, Individual

Prof. takes notes, says, “Interesting.” Again, lends credence to statement / student.

Prof’s sample survey report uses student’s own voices, prof is honest about positive and questioning responses. Tone fluctuates, communicates relevance of statement, and, thus meaning.

Directs discussion model, Socratic Seminar / Leaderless Discussion -- no raised hands, no interrupting, no talking to teacher, refer to text, may use own experience.

Prof asks, “What are the different contexts for action research presented in the 3 articles? Does context matter?” Steps back from role.

I’m taking notes. No time to consider discussion.

Ende speaks to the relationship between participants – Clay and teachers, Minarik to students and politics, and Van den Berg prof. students.

Lisa responds, refers to text, speaks to Ende.

Gwen draws attention to page 24, the parallels between students and teachers and the “tell us what you want” line.

Class is jotting notes on their own observations.

Meaning generated student to student, through dialogue.

4. INTERPRETATIONS & CATEGORIES

The information generated during this class was a combination of instructor led and student generated.

The class began with “business” as the professor covered updates on the schedule, the upcoming conference, and so on. This was led by the instructor, necessarily, and the information was generated primarily orally, however, the professor uses a great deal of eye contact and intonation to deliver her material. In addition, the professor uses “say back” to make clear what she’s heard prior to responding. This mode of transmission and delivery assumes legitimacy and importance for each rhetor, and moves the means of meaning-making into the constructivist or social-epistemic mode.

After taking care of business, the class began a “Socratic Seminar.” The professor detailed the ground rules for the activity, and then tossed out a question, open-ended, allowing for a variety of response, and most importantly, response beyond a simple “yes” or “no.”

Many students participated in the discussion. The discussion moved forward in an orderly and mannerly fashion. Each student’s contribution seemed to be validated in part by the next respondent, and it appeared meaning was being constructed in a layer-by-layer manner, like revision in writing, a means of adding new meaning and understanding to what’s already been thought or written.

Students spoke primarily to one another, looking at each other as one or another spoke. As a class, we were engaged with each others’ minds, not filtered through any single individual or the professor.

This mode of information generation forces ownership of the learning squarely upon each student’s shoulder. It is absolutely student-centered, generated through dialogue, and removes the professor from the sage on the stage role.

However, I think this sort of learning environment begins and ends with the teacher. In this case, take consider how the class began, teacher-centered to a degree, when the professor was taking care of administrative sorts of stuff. When a question was asked of the professor, or directed in her direction, the professor listened intently, restated the student’s concern, maybe jotted notes, and all of these things legitimize the student’s contribution, and, thus, students feel power, students feel welcome in speaking, and students are accustomed to being heard and taken seriously.

In an environment that did not contain elements of constructivist epistemology, I predict that it might be impossible for a Socratic Seminar to work effectively because the groundwork, the “permission”, for such meaning-making hasn’t been set forth.

102-10 (Monday, Feb 14)

This is a dead class, a class of zombies, but unlike Shaun of the Dead, I cannot take a cricket bat and beat them.

I knew early this class would be challenging. I think it was the day I came into class and discovered only two students had read the day's assignment. They showed no contrition, no remorse, didn't seem bothered at all that they had failed in their roles as students.

I was fortunate to engage them the day Jean, my tenure cmte chair, came to visit my class. I did it by force of personality, however, and I can't do that every day.

I wonder if I could administer a learning style inventory to them? Maybe I might discover what makes these folks tick. Right now, it ain't me.

After the reading assignment fiasco, and last week trying to get a discussion going, and having only one student participate, I am leery of using lecture-discussion with this class. On Wednesday, I am having them write a collaborative ethics guide for participant observation research, and maybe this sort of group work will be useful. If nothing else, it should begin to build a social dynamic within the class. Right now, there is none. The class is deadly silent when I enter, and the same as students leave.

I know one thing for certain: I cannot bear 16 weeks of this. It's funny, I teach the same class at 10am as this 12pm class, and my 10am class responds entirely differently. If I didn't have my 10am class as a baseline, I would question my own aptitude as a teacher (more).

Reading a Classroom

MODE OF INFORMATION TRANSMISSION / DELIVERY / CONSTRUCTION

A. Evocation

How is information generated in class? (Lecture, lecture-discussion, student construction, groups)

In what forms is the information generated and presented? Oral, written, kinesthetic, other?

B. Response and Interpretation

What role does the information system play -- to instruct? to generate instruction? to create dialectical tension?

What assumptions about information dominate (positivist, constructivist, other)?

C. Criticism

How does the mode of information affect learning?

"Coming to Know My Place" - Wanda C. Clay

Clay is an instructional supervisor at a "River City" Urban Prep.

Curriculum development is one of her major tasks, and in working with the science department, she encounters resistance from a 6th grade teacher who contends that she is interfering with his creativity and spontaneity. She questions the rights of the individuals versus the rights of the collective group, that is working towards curriculum design and change.

I'm thuinking about ethics, and whether these sorts of ethical issues are ones I might face. I don't think so, at this point. If I'm studying one or two classes, and, for example, trying to guage the impact of working in an online environment on the writer's development of voice, and understanding of audience, then the students aren't really involved in the same way that Clay's 6th grade teachers are involved. My student's stake in this is sort of passive; the benefit to them is my greater understanding of their experience and understanding in a course, which is hopefully generalizable to future populations as well.

I understand Clay's dilemma from my experiences with Outcomes Assessment at SWIC, and the 6th grade teacher's concern is legitimate.

The rest of her article, about toeing the line between authority and collaboration, is interesting. It seems like wherever I've taught Comp, there has been a similar struggle between the traditionalists and others, within the departments themselves. At SWIC, we are fairly coherent, but there is tension between our department and some in the rest of the college because they do not see the value of how and what we are trying to teach our students. They see students in their classes who have come out of English 101 and 102 still making errors in what they write, and they blame us and accuse us of not doing our jobs. When we try ot explain the rhetorical / process basis for our classes, it simply fuels their fire.

Clay uses as her guiding mantra - the ethically defensible action. What is the ehtically defensible action? A good mantra.

"Tuesday Night Revisited," Leslie Turner Minarik

Awful. I'm not talking about the fact that Minarik's students were transient, in foster care, unable to read, malnourished, or that the conditions of the school were so poor, I'm talking about the superintendent telling her, "Teachers don't make decisions."

It should be a prerequisite that all administrators have classroom experience. My dean at SWIC, Paul Wreford, was a history teacher. This man is a tireless advocate for his faculty. He understands the stresses, pressure, and long hours teachers endure, even if all that is required of them is 5 classes and 5 office hours. This superintendent is mistaken; teachers make decisions in their classrooms minute-by-minute, and they are exactly the resource that should be making decisions about policy.

No wonder Minarik couldn't sleep.

"Student Advocacy"

Minarik speaks about the ethics of following district mandates, or hoeing her own road and choosing text and curriculum that she knows is best for teaching her students, in her class. This doesn't really have to do with ethical issues in research, right? It does, however, illustrate how teachers power can be stolen from them. Again, it is the teachers who should be making curricular decisions because it is they who know what's best for their students.

This is appalling. The more I pay attention, the more I see a systematic derogatory and condescending attitude towards teachers. It might be interesting to do a study of the rhetoric surrounding teachers and teaching, at all levels. How could I do this? Jane, How could I do this? How could I look at the all the characterizations of teachers and schools, positive and negative? My guess is that the negative would far outweigh the positive.

I think, again, it's all about the dollar, and people see schools and teachers as a perpetual drain on the economy, local and national. But, what's more important than educating ourselves?

"Doing the Right Thing"

Minarik, "This is even more true now as some people argue that those of us who are white cannot research children of color."

???

What do I think? I agree that in terms of experience, it is hard to empathize with someone who is growing up without food on the table, some stability in the family, a role model, and values completely different than my WASP teachings. It's not impossible though. And I do think teachers have to understand something of who their students are as people in order to teach them best.

I'm sure that I do and say things in my classes, make assumptions about topic or pedagogy or language, that alienates some of my black students, but I've also had some success as well. I few semesters ago I had a student, William, from Caseyville, who sat in the back of the room, and early on, he played on the computers, never looked at me, and didn't do any of the work. He couldn't be bothered. As is my tact, I left him alone. He did, however, turn in his first paper. I read the words on the page, and responded to him. There was a great deal of non-standard usage, but there was some thinking underlying it all, and I told him so in my comments. I think this was the first time a writing teacher had listened to his words, rather than just writing him off because of his language. He perked up; he finished my course, and he did well. Still, when I see him in the hall, he says, "What up Lund."

I guess what I'm saying is, we may not be able to understand, we may even not be able to research, but we certainly can still teach, if we're open and earnest with our pursuits.

"Systemic Reform?"

"Classroom-Level Reform Through Action Research"

"The University Connection"

"Will you gather data on your normal educational practice and on changes in curriculum, instruction, and assessment that you could make . . . according to your own professional judgement?" Yes, means minimal IRB review?

" . . . anonynimity offers protection from many ethical risks."

"How ethical is research when teachers' experiences and interpretations are excluded from analysis? Multiple perspectives / data triangulation = validity.

Positivist vs. Social Epistemolgy

For some reason, I can't quite explain to my students the difference between imagining knowledge and meaning as "out there" waiting to be discovered, and knowledge and meaning that is constructed through the interplay between self and subject.

I tired today, in my 102, to explain the theoretical slant of the textbook we are using -- Fieldworking. The assignment for today was to read an excerpt from Gloria Naylor's "Mama Day." The excerpt contained cultural information, which fits with the whole idea of ethnographic research, and even a character, Reema's boy, who tries to write an ethnography of Naylor's island people, and doesn't get the facts right, according to the islanders, but this wasn't the point of the assignment.

The assignment was designed to explore how each of us reads differently, based on immutable attributes, such as age, gender, race, and our life's experience. This is an example of a reading that assumes knowledge , about a reading, is constructed through the interplay between reader and writer.

No one got it, or cared to get it. Maybe it's just me that's really interested in this sort of stuff. They should be interested because when we talk of epistemology, we're talking about learning, and, afterall, they are all students . . . .

I used an example of a notebook, placed on a table. I said, from a positivist perspective, the notebook, and knowledge of the notebook, is out there, and it is our job to simply walk around the room until we discover the notebook (and I walked around the toom). But, from a social epistemic stance, we find the notebook, but our knowledge of it doesn't come until we open up the notebook, and begin to experience the notebook, read and write in the notebook, interact with the notebook.

I felt foolish; they stared at me like I was nuts. I wonder if it is because they have ingrained in them, so firmly, the idea that knowledge is just out there, reality is as it is, and they cannot imagine another way of seeing the world or learning.

Does it matter whether they understand or not? I mean, really. It matters to me, as a teacher, because I want them to take possession of their own learning, and in order to do so, they should understand their role in the education they are pursuing. It matters for their ethnographies because part of completing an ethnography, taking fieldnotes, trying to understand culture, is understanding how they have been changed by their experience with culture, and where they are now, as people, affects the ways they will see and interpret culture.

Hmmm.

Does it matter?

Brian Huot - "Toward a New Theory of Writing Assessment" - 1996

article deals with the issue of assessment, not individual assessment, but assessment for the purposes of placement, exit, or program evaluation.

argues traditional assessment procedures are based upon classical test theory, which assumes a positivist epistemology that assumes "there exists a reality out there, driven by immutable natural laws" (Guba, qtd in Huot). for writing, this positivist epistemology also assumes that writing abilities are fixed, acontextual, and consistent, and that one TRUE score is achievable for each measurement. In this case, positivists assume a student's writing ability (score) is out there, waiting to be assessed or discovered.

the fault with this assumption is that writing is contextual, and not disconnected from the rhetorical situation. it also assumes, i think, a simpler understanding of what constitutes good writing, criterion that does not take into account the enormous complexity of defining good writing. Certainly, an assessment could take into consideration the level of diction, the number of "errors," the perceived structure and purpose of the piece, but is any of that anything more than a measure of one writer's single sample of writing, and is it really generalizable to that individual, or the public at large? Probably not.

"Since the 1980's, VALIDITY has come to be defined as more than the traditional notion that a test measures what it purports to measure" (550). Samuel Messick and Lee Cronbach have been revising this view.

For Messick, validity is "an integrated evaluative judgement of the degree to which empirical evidence and theoretical rationales support the adequacy and appropriateness of inferences and actions based on test scores or other modes of assessment."

What does this mean? This seems to couple evidence and theory, and seems to be saying that the theoretical rationale in support of the test must couple with the empirical evidence in order to establish validity. I guess this has something to do with "WHAT IT" purports to measure (traditional definition of validity). It seems this new definition reconsiders the criterion and, for writing, re-envisions the current-traditionalist approach to writing evaluation as a sort of mechanical process.

Reliability - same result on repeated trials.

This is an issue, because if you look at assessing writing, and assume a new rhetoric sort of stance that accepts and admits to contextual factors in the rating of writing, then you almost must throw out or discount the issue of reliability. the traditional response to the problem of reliability has been to "impose an artificial context, consisting of scoring guidelines and rater training in an attempt to calibrate human judges as one might adjust a mechnical tool . . . ." It is nearly impossible for raters to agree in a acontextual reading of writing.

According to Michael Williamson, "high reliability is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for establishing the validity of a measure." Huot -- "An interpretative framework supports the linguistic context within which all writing assessment should take place because it acknowledges the indeterminacy of meaning and the importance of individual and communal interpretations and values."

The idea seems to accept the social construction of meaning, and the indeterminacy of meaning outside of its own social / political / human context. So, validity is established as a result of understanding and establishing the meaingful context within which the writing will be evaluated.

EdRem 6714 "Status Report"

Big Question I Am Currently Exploring:

My big question has to do with the use of technology in the writing classroom, and the use of a hybrid course design. SWIC has been piloting the hybrid writing course for two semesters now, and I've been teaching online writing classes (and literature classes) for three years now.

I have had a fairly good experience with online courses, and my hybrids, but my colleagues have not. There's been a steep learning curve with both online courses and the hybrid, not in terms of the technology, but in terms of how to design the classes, and how to best port my f2f instruction to the online environment.

In both cases, the students who have finished the classes, I feel, have learned a great deal about writing, about themselves as writers, and developed an independence as a writer and learner.

My big question is WHY?

I have a hunch that it has something to do with responsibility, feedback, and audience. I think the students who finish the hybrid or online courses must take responsibility for their own learning. I am there to scaffold their experience, to a degree. Early in the semester, there's a great deal of anxiety among some students, and they tend to send me e-mails regarding every little thing. In responding to these e-mails, I try to maintain my patience, post good questions to a FAQS page, and in responding, direct the students to the resource or page they need to answer the question for themselves. If they ask me about how to complete the reading journals, I send them to the page that covers that issue. In my experience, most of the business sorts of questions have answers online, but they just have not spent the time working through the course's resources.

For rhetorical questions, such as, "what am I supposed to write my essay on?", I give them a rhetorical answer - "You need to fiigure that out on your own, but consider purpose seriously and make sure that there is something at stake in this essay for both you and your reader."

I think feedback plays a role. The feedback I provide is almost entirely formative in nature, and I avoid fixing their papers. It's cumbersome doing so with digital copies of their essays, and I really figure, at this level, if there are issues with mechanics or syntax, it is their responsibility to take care of it by consulting the handbook, or taking their essays to the Success Center.

The third element is audience. I think students expand their conception of audience because of their correspondence with me, which is frequent, and their peers. I DO NOT do a great job of building a social environment online, but I think the students take up the slack, and in writing to one another to offer moral support, answer to questions, and feedback on their papers, they experience, maybe for the first time in an academic setting, a reader who listens carefully and responds.

My big question is still WHY? Why does it work.

There has been lots written about students' experience in online classes, and how teachers should design their courses with a clear itinerary, and clearly delineated objectives, to help students succeed. I know all this, but I'm looking for more, and looking for answers to questions related to writing in particular.

I'm not formally collecting data, but I would like to. Everything the students write is recorded, so I could try and analyze growth and development by doing a sort of case study. Or, I might ask them to complete more metacognitive sorts of assignments so I could get a glimpse at their inner workings. I have them complete a number of reflections assignments on revision, feedback, evaluated writing, form, and such, but this doesn't really seem to tell me what I want to know.

I guess the help I would really like is fairly straightforward. I would like you to tell me what to do. I'd like you to say:

1. keep fieldnotes in which you record . . .
2. arrange an interview with a few students
3. develop some additional metacognitive activities that ask students to respond to issues of authority and audience.
4. do a literature review
5. narrow and focus your question.
6. write it up.

Right now, the text that is most helpful to me is "The Writing Teacher as Researcher," ed. by Donald Daiker and Max Morenberg. For the past week, I've been reading articles about the theory of research. It's very interesting, but sort of selfish. I need to read the section on the writing teacher and authority, and I think there might be some good stuff the section on the writing teacher in the lit class, such as: "The Construction of Meaning: Practicing What We Preach," by Lee Odell, and "Observing Students' Reflective Thinking: A Teacher-Research Project," by Barry Kroll.

I'm going to start reading Freire for the Classroom when I'm finished, and I picked up a book by Bruner, Acts of Meaning. I'm a really slow reader though, so this hinders me a great deal, but I will keep plugging away.

"Reading the Classroom as Text" VanDeWeghe & Reid

Metaphors for teaching: Journey, Bridge, Un-Covering, students as plants, teacher as gardener, student as athlete, teacher as coach, learning as highway or candy jar.

The article characterizes teacher research as "reading the classroom as text" and explores the possibilities and limits of describing teacher research in this way.

I'm going to combine what follows below with an analysis / reflection of what I saw in Prof. Ray Webb's history class, the class I observed for practicing fieldnotes.

Heuristic developed for reading classroom as text:

CLASSROOM DISCOURSE

A. Evocation
1. who talks? how do they talk? what do they say?
2. what types of discourse statements do you observe (questions, declaratives)?
3. What is the proportion of teacher talk to student talk.

In Prof. Webb's class, the prof. takes center stage. He talks, interjects humor, asks an occassional question to which the students respond with either material from the text, or an answer that prof Webb is fishing for, and one that he has well-prepared students to answer by previewing the questions and giving students clues to the expected answer. I did not observe in this period, more than one or two student questions, and most of their responses were declarative -- "Louis XIV," "Absolutism," "Apprentice," etc. The proportion of teacher talk to student talk was 25:1. I figure in the 50 minute class, students contributed 2 minutes of talk to the professor's 50.

B. Response and Interpretation
1. What role does silence play?
2. What purposes do the various types of discourse serve (dispense information, elicit response, construct knowledge, establish and maintain relationships, evaluate responses, organize activities)?
3. From the discourse practices, how do you describe the orientation of language in the classroom (teacher-centered, student-centered, inquiry-oriented, formal, informal)?

I did not observe a great deal of silence. I think on the flip-side, humor -- laughter and giggles -- played a larger role than silence to prompt student's response and engagement.

the discourse in the classroom was an equal mix of dispensing information, constructing knowledge, maintaining relationships. After the class, I characterized Prof' Webb's class as similar to a sitcom in pacing and style. There were punchlines every few minutes or so, in which Ray brought students to a conclusion regarding the subject matter, after 10 minutes or so, Ray backed up, told a joke, made a connection to student's lives, or lightened the atmosphere before returning to the business at hand.

the discourse was informal, and, I think, inquiry-based, because while the classroom was teacher-centered, the manner in which Ray conducted class expected students to think and consider, even if they were not asked to share this thinking with the teacher or rest of the class.

2. MODE OF INFORMATION TRANSMISSION / DELIVERY / CONSTRUCTION

A.Evocation
How is information generated in the class (lecture, lecture-discussion, student construction, groups)?
In what forms is the information generated in the class (oral, written, visual, kinesthetic, other)?

B. Response and Interpretation
What role does the information system play -- to instruct, generate discussion, create a dialectical tension?
What assumptions about information (positivist, constructivist, other)?
C. Criticism
How does the mode of information generation affect learning?

3. CLASSROOM KINESTHETICS

A. Evocation
Who moves around in the space of the class?
Describe those movements (where does the teacher moves, the students)?

B. Response and Interpretation
How is movement instrumentally related to teaching or learning?

C. Criticism
How does movement or the absence of movement affect learning?

4.USE OF MEDIA

A. Evocation

What media are used?
In what ways are they used?
Who uses them?

B. Response and Interpretation

Are some media more effective than others?

C. Criticism

What impact does technology appear to have on learning?

5. EVIDENCE OF THEORY INTEGRATED WITH PRACTICE

A. Evocation

What evidence is there of theories regarding learning, reading, writing, or other language arts practiced?

B. Response and Interpretation

Does the teacher appear to be aware of this theory, how so?

C. Criticism

What impact doe the enactment of theory have upon learning?

6. cLIMATE

7. POWER AND AUTHORITY

I'm finding that Ray's class is not a great one for analysis because of its current-traditionalist slant. This is NOT to say that I did not see engaged students, or think the lecture was ripe for learning and drawing connections, because it was, but it may be that Ray teaches a great deal through personality, or with personality, the force of a creative and powerful personality, rather than a focus on theory and grand pedagogy.

Different roles for teachers and students:

Teacher as teller, students as passive receivers -- current-traditionalist rhetoric, positivist approach

Classroom as STAGE -- truth is located outside the learner in teachers and books, and language functions to TRANSMIT knowledge

Classroom as CONVERSATION -- truth exists in the interactions among learners and language functions to create meaning -- SOCIAL EPISTEMIC.

I'm absolutely social epistemic. I see language's importance as fundamental to learning, and far more complicated a use than simple communication of meaning. Language shapes our reality, our knowing, who we are and become. Now, this, while I agree, and have this sort of tacit and hazy understanding of, is hard for me to TRANSMIT to my students.

I know that how I name things around me affects what they are and become. But what is a concrete example of this that makes it clear that this is an absolute function of language and not simply thinking or being?

Teachers as READERS of the literacy behaviors of students

teachers role is to make sense of the conversation that is going on the classroom, and if students fail to do an assignment well, or read the homework, discovering what this means about the conversation that had been occurring in class. I like this idea because it is proactive, and gives teachers power over their pedagogy and classroom.

James Berlin: The Teacher as Researcher: Democracy, Dialogue, and Power

Berlin argues that teacher research is emancipatory, and that Paulo Freiere, Ira Shor, Stanley Aronowitz and Henry Giroux also plant seeds for the "transformative teacher."

Berlin notes that education has been under attack at least twenty years, since Reagan charged that schools were not meeting the nation's needs - these needs described in purely economic terms. Sec of Education for Reagan, William Bennett, argued that we need to improve the schools so that America can remain econimically competitive with the rest of the developed world. Sadly enough, kudos have not been forthcoming since the major economic boom of the 90's and the rapid growth of America as the economic powerhouse for the world.

Since, instead of debasing schools based in economic terms, the pajama people are now attacking the schools based on ubiquitous, nationally-normed testing.

If it's not one thing, it's another. In the Belleville-News Repugnican (Democrat, how ironic) yesterday, the editorial page had a cartoon lampooning the NEA. Around the desk of the NEA were different agenda items like promoting gay marriage, gun control, abortion, giving condoms to kids, and so on. For a nation that claims to value education so highly, it sure seem intent upon attacking every aspect of that system, from teachers through curriculum.

Berlin argues vehemently against standardized testing, and urges teachers to respond to the usurping of their power of creativity and choice in the classroom.

Research Question(s)

I just read a piece by a student. He says:

"My point here is that during verbal discussion, one can adjust to the audience as they go but when we put our ideas, thoughts or opnions in writing, we have one chance to capture our audience and make ourself heard. I find that when I write something down or put thoughts to papers, I have a hard time putting feeling or meaning behind some of my sentences. I can hear the reader pouring over the words in their head using a monotone voice that gives little or no life to the words."

Wow. This strikes me on a number of different levels. It's obvious that this student understands audience, and that writing isn't completed in a vaccuum, but his conception of his audience is somewhat harsh. He doesn't yet see his language as alive, as effecting a reader; he sees his language as dead and lifeless, and in contrast, when he speaks, he can use inflection and body language to help convey his message -- this is funny -- or whatever.

He knows, though, that audience matters. He says, "we have only one chance to capture our audience," but at the same time, feels inadequate in making those words count for a reader, "I have a hard time putting feeling or meaning behind some of my sentences."

I haven't quite sorted out completely what this all means to me, but it makes me think about students' conception of audience and how it effects their writing. What Franek has written here shows a rhetorical awareness, which is great. He's not just writing for teacher, at least, I don't think so, unless, of course, the one chance to impact a reader really means one chance to impress teacher, but, honestly, from my experience with Franek and his work, I think he's speaking legitimately here. He's older than average, spent 11 years in the military, and is here to learn.

Audience and purpose. Audience and style. Audience and structure.

How does audience effect what I write. As I write, I imagine an audience. The audience I imagine is interested, to a point, in what I might say. The audience is usually, I think, an amalgamation of my respected peers. For this piece, I think Jane might be reading it. I also think of Franek, and I might show it to him to get his reaction at some point. But beyond that, I'm really writing for me. I guess I'm selfish. I'm writing this because I'm interested in what the writing of this might teach me about audience, and understanding Franek's position. By the way, the student's name is not Franek; I've changed it. I was getting tired of refering to Franek as student or writer. He's not that. He's a real face, a real student, who's writing with me right now as we speak.

I need to do some reading. I need to read about audience. I need to find some journal articles.

Action Research Readings

Janes Says:

But now I WOULD like a clearer idea of where you are. I believe you
are still finishing a course or two at Minnesota -- but those are being
replaced by UMSL courses, right? So are you taking anything else this
semester? Do you have some issues in your current teaching that strike
you as questions to explore? There is a LOT of action research being
published in college comp. these days. I may be able to suggest some
recent work to spark your thinking.

Yes, I have a few courses to complete for my M.Ed. One of them, CI 5177 Practical Research in Education, I'm hoping Action Research will sub for.

As far as readings, and my research interest, I have lots. I'm interested in technology in the writing classroom, and what value is added to students' writing experience because of technology. For example, does using technology in the classroom expand students' conception of audience because they are sharing their work consistently to the large group, and if it does, does it matter. That is, the importance / impact / effect of understanding audience on students' development as writers.

I don't care to read another article ABOUT using technology, and what a wonderful, vibrant experience it is. I want to know if it matters, and why or how or when it matters.

My hunch is that it does matter, and, in fact, my hunch is that online writing classes are great because of the audience issue, among others (for example, students who excel in online classes do so because they are independent learners, and independent learners seem to grow more as writers in a course that is structured as mine is).

In terms of simple experience, I am interested in my hybrid students' experience in my class. I'm concerned about support, and what I do with my f2f time with them. Does it matter? I spend one day a week previewing the assignments, and then I let them do the assignments. Is this enough support? Is it good, the relative structure of one meeting a week, but then the independence of working outside of class on the writing. This is of less interest to me, but of immediate concern because we are piloting these hybrid classes at SWIC, and my colleagues' experiences with the classes have been negative, mine have been fair to good. I probably need, at some point in the next semester or two, come up with some conclusions about this course design.

As far as reading, I picked three books off my shelf, books I have not read, and one that I read about 8 years aho when I was just starting out as a teacher. Two of them have to do with Teacher-Research: "The Writing Teacher as Researcher," ed by Donald A. Daiker and Max Morenberg, and "The Practice of Theory," by Ruth E. Ray. The Ray book was required for a grad seminar I had in Rhet Theory, but we never really dealt with any of the issues in the book, other than a very cursory introduction to teacher research, and the Daiker book I ordered last year because I was thinking I'd like to learn more about teacher-research.

The third book is "When STudents Have Power" by Ira Shor. I read this book 8 years ago, as a young teacher. Shor was the keynote speaker at a conference I presented at, and I picked up his book. I read it, tried it, but didn't really get it. I was too young as a teacher to understand the issue of pwer in the comp classroom. I am, however, interesting in this issue now, mainly because after hearing the Pres. of Flo Valley CC's presentation, I realized that power matters in terms of people taking ownership and responsibility for their ideas, and I want my students to do this, take ownership of their own ideas and thinking because it makes for good writing.

I'm not sure how immediate this concern is for me right now, but it may have something to do with audience and writing as well, especially writing for teacher, and giving teacher so much power over your own composing process and product. I don't know.

This is where I'm at now. When I look into the future, I see my dis being teacher research into some aspect of learning to write well. I don't want to look at revision. This interests me, but there's been lots written about it, and I truly think I do a passable job teaching revision as it stands. This is not to say that students synthesize this learning and apply it, but it's their for them. Often, I think they are too uncommitted, maybe too lazy, to make their revisions matter.

As far as additional reading -- anything to do with audience is keen for me. Really, I'm open to anything. I have not read Ken McRorie's "I See" or any of Paulo Freire, James Britton . . . . I am willing to read anything. I'm really not picky.