AR Proposal - Zeni Foundation
Part One: Can Virtue Be Taught?
In Plato’s dialogue, the Meno, Socrates takes up the issue of whether virtue can be taught. Plato’s dialogue suggests an interesting educational paradigm: if we need to know something, consult an expert. In this case, Meno, seeking an answer to the question, “can virtue be taught,” consults Socrates. Socrates does not, however, give Meno the answer he desires – Socrates pleads ignorance, coercing Meno into discovering an answer for himself, by some other process other than consulting an authority.
The past four months have been a struggle for me within my own practice. The semester began brightly, and I felt a sudden rush of optimism after discussing my students’ responses to the diagnostic essay prompt I had given to them. We engaged in a lengthy conversation about what it means to be a student. The fieldnotes I recorded after this class meeting reveal this burgeoning optimism:
I think my students may understand somewhat better the role of the student in this teaching and learning endeavor. I think my students might understand why and when it is appropriate to take the reins, and make their learning their own, rather than simply trying to please teacher (1/27/2005).
Like Socrates, I want my students to take charge of their own learning to write well. They are an essential part of the equation. A number of theorists support this position that in order for students to learn well, to learn truly, they must take charge, and take responsibility for their own learning (Berlin, Elbow, Shor, Finkel, Freire, etc). However, it wasn’t soon after this whole-class discussion that the bastion of hope and optimism I had built began to crumble. In one class, I was trying to explain different conceptions of knowledge and where it is located – inside subjective self or outside in objective reality. I used what I thought was a beautiful metaphor, a notebook, to represent the two different paradigms, but, alas, in the end:
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, after all, they are all students . . . (1/31/2005).
This issue of epistemology necessarily burdens students, like the ancient mariner’s albatross, and is one that cries to be addressed, so, why then would they not meet me halfway?
In a writing class, viewing the self as a meaning-maker, rather than meaning-perceiver, impacts both how and what we write. In a history class, accepting meaning as the privileged domain of teacher ensures the student a passive and distanced relationship with what is being learned. As a student, epistemology is never far from sight.
A few weeks after this, I noted:
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 (2/14/2005).
The struggle to entice students to take ownership of their own learning did not lessen, and, in fact, only became more apparent as the weeks wore on and we began peer feedback exercises. Paulo Freire writes, “Education must begin with the solution of the teacher-student contradiction, by reconciling the poles of the contradiction so that both are simultaneously teachers and students” (53). Peer feedback offers student an opportunity to begin to reconcile the poles Freire speaks to. This is not to say that in completing revision feedback, the responder need adopt the role of teacher and grade the piece, but rather, the student, having been exposed to the same context and content, and writing for similar pretenses, can give hints and suggestions to another writer/learner engaged in a similar activity. In addition, feedback, even descriptive feedback, is evaluative in the sense that the reader, ideally, should convey to the writer what was happening to them, moment by moment, as they worked through the piece in front of them.
From my perspective as a teacher, I know that nothing has taught me more about myself as a writer than reading and responding to other writers, namely student writers – being teacher. Moreover, there is a wealth of research that argues the necessity and importance of peer feedback in any writing situation, and, in fact, this idea birthed the whole notion of teaching writing using a workshop model. So, why doesn’t it work in my classes?
In any given semester, I receive a number of e-mails similar to this one:
Can you please take a look at my rough draft for this 3rd essay. I need critiques, and I feel as if I'm not getting that. I'm not pleased with the (late) middle portion of the paper, as well as the ending. As I wrote this I didn't know where to bring it to an end. It ends too abruptly....what can I do to fix this? (3/28/2005)
This student feels slighted by her peers’ responses. She wants more, and recognizes the need for more, beyond improving her grade, but to truly understand her material and how she’s writing about it.
This is one of the responses the student above is reacting to:
The first sentence tells me exactly what I will be reading about. It is the bones of the essay. I enjoyed reading your essay very much, and thanks for sharing. It is nice information to have for civics class (3/26/2005).
This response references what Peter Elbow terms the “Bones” of the essay, or the essay’s underlying purpose or focus, beyond the subject or topic, but rather the author’s stance towards that topic, but it reveals little to the original writer about the reader’s understanding of the essay. The responder explains that this is “nice information for a civics class,” but does not qualify the statement. What is nice information for a civics class? Why is it nice information? Why does the information matter?
I should mention at this point that I have used a number of different strategies to try and get students involved and to actively participate in peer feedback. I have used very detailed questionnaires, an open-ended writing process, verbal feedback, modeling, and various other means of trying to teach feedback, each with varying success, but none that satisfy me in the least.
As I see it, this issue is one of many colors, one of the primaries being the issue of power and democracy in the classroom, and, another, of where meaning is made. If the student sees any single essay, any single journal response, as one with only one right answer, then the feedback paradigm, one which privileges collaboration, and understands language as a socially-constructive process, implodes. Furthermore, if students refuse active participation in the learning, and bestow upon teacher the god-like power of ultimate arbiter, then the feedback paradigm breaks down. In order for feedback to work, students must accept the democratic nature of the writing classroom, be willing participants, and be willing to accept the sometimes difficult idea that knowledge is made in-process.
Part Two: Remedy
Overview
This study is intended to examine the issue of peer review / feedback in the college composition classroom. My biggest question is what can I do to foster significant feedback between peers in a writing class? What else can I do to improve the substance of peer feedback?
Post-Process composition theory understands language as socially constructed, with meaning negotiated among all involved rhetors, which makes the successful institution of a system of peer review essential to a student’s understanding and growth as a writer in the post-process composition classroom.
This study will examine students’ conceptions of power and authority in the classroom; seek to discover the student’s understanding of epistemology, or, according to them, where meaning is located in reference to self. Finally, this study will pair students, anonymously, with students from another section of the same class. Each section will complete feedback on the other section’s essays. It is my hope that the anonymity afforded each responder will allow them to open themselves to the words presented to them on the page.
In the end, it is my hope to come to understand what issues impact the successful integration of peer feedback into a composition course. I hope to understand how issues of power and democracy in the composition classroom affect peer review, and how a student’s personal understanding of where meaning is made influences their responses, and their thinking about the responses they receive.
Location
In positioning myself with regard to this project, I imagine one of the largest obstacles to my understanding the student’s experience and perspective with feedback is my role as teacher. I have evaluated and offered feedback on thousands of student writing samples. As a teacher, I could probably chart my own progression through various stages and types of feedback. I recall, vividly, for example, as a 1st year teaching assistant, editing and proofreading my students’ essays. The first batch of essays I graded took me 16 hours to complete -- a single section! As I grew and matured and a teacher, this sort of response became tedious, and I suppose my own feeling of the futility of such feedback prompted me to seek alternatives. In the end, I have many hours of trial and error to account for the stance and attitudes I have towards the value and function of feedback, something I am asking my students to develop in a matter of 16 weeks. The difference here, however, is that I was never given any formal instruction regarding how to respond to student writing, and I am trying, in my classes, to explain to the best of my ability, the role and function of feedback.
Moreover, I came of age in the 80’s, and during this period, education was dominated by standardized testing and outcomes assessment. My teachers had the freedom to teach as they saw fit. Mr. Berger sat us down for fifty minutes and made us write. Mr. Anderson hammered us with skill and drill, while Mr. Burkman taught us writing by making us read great books, then write critical analyses of them. I respected my teachers, gave them the power over me I thought was their due, and did my work dutifully, not because I was particularly interested.
I developed as a student in the years that followed, and I began to develop my own interest in the things I learned, so much so, that now that I am back in school, I sometimes have difficulty being obedient and doing as I’m told rather than what I choose. I understand the power I have as a learner, and I know my own process well. I understand the inevitable struggle that comes with learning -- the physical discomfort, the nervous chatter in my own head, the struggle to find just the right word – and I relish it. I am empowered. I want this gift for each and every one of my students, each and every one of this study’s participants.
Methods
Assessing student’s understanding of the location of meaning, their power in any given classroom, and how to improve the substance of peer feedback will require a number of different methodologies.
To understand how students see the power dynamic in the classroom, I will rely on coded analyses of the diagnostic essay prompt all students complete at the beginning of my college writing course. In addition, I will record fieldnotes covering the group discussion of the prompt, and rely on individual interviews with students willing to spend the time.
To examine the student understanding of epistemology, I will rely on coded fieldnotes and transcriptions of large group discussions and lectures I conduct on the matter, as well as recorded interviews with students willing to share their views on the subject.
As far as the effect of using paired and anonymous sections for peer review, and examining its effect, I will rely on the student’s work itself. We will use an online peer feedback program published by Bedford / St. Martin’s, “COMMENT,” to complete and catalog comments. Comment allows students to comment directly on a digital copy of their peer’s paper, and these comments are saved and cataloged. As the course administrator, I am able to compile and print each individual student’s remarks chronologically, and trace each student’s remarks and, thus, development as a responder.
I have collected and saved, although not coded, three semesters worth of “traditional” feedback students have completed in my courses over the past twelve months. If expedient, I will compare the sorts of remarks students make in what is essentially a face-to-face situation with those completed anonymously.
What are the ethical implications for students involved in such a project? Well, I suppose participation in such a study must be voluntary, and students should understand the whether they choose to participate or not, there will be no direct bearing on their grade for the course; however, active participation, because they are graded on the feedback they provide to their peers during the normal course of the class, they might benefit over those who choose not to participate, but to volunteer does not guarantee a better grade, while, likewise, failing to participate does not guarantee a lower grade.
Subjects, Subjectivity, and Relationships
The communities touched by such research include students, me as classroom teacher, and possibly other professionals in the composition field.
I have power over the students. In the end, I will assign them a grade based on the feedback they tender, as well as an overall grade for their development as a writer in my course. Assuming this project, or something like it, becomes part of my doctoral dissertation, my UMSL advisor will have power over me.
There is the potential for my abuse of the trust my students place in me as a professional and their teacher. Potentially, some of their work, thoughts, ideas, maybe even words could be lifted by me and passed off as my own without attribution. Overall, however, I believe such work will strengthen the trust students have of me as we work closely to define and reconcile a common issue we both confront in our separate roles and teacher and student.
There is also the potential for the harm of individual students by other students. For example, in an essay about the death of a loved one, a multifaceted and emotional issue, it may be that under normal circumstances, students asked to respond to such work rely on ambiguity and trite, but safe, statements, however, in asking them to respond substantively, a student might inadvertently offend or hurt the other student’s feeling by responding inappropriately. To combat such a possibility, it might be advisable to include a statement in the syllabus, consent form, with each activity, that if one feels uncomfortable in responding to an essay because the issue addressed feels too emotionally or personally charged, they may opt out of responding to such work.
In the end, I hope to empower students by offering them a participant role in the research and results. This feels essential to me as a teacher and researcher.
Consequences
I do believe different kinds of consent may be required. In addition to a blanket consent to participate, since I plan on involving students heavily and including their perspectives, and words where appropriate, and individual consent to publish is in order for those student who compile material that will be used in some substantive manner.
I’m torn regarding anonymity. On the one hand, if student work is included, those students should receive full credit for their participation and contribution. This raises the stakes for them. It also legitimates their perspective, showing them the power and efficacy of their language and ideas.
I’m concerned, however, about attributing work that I might criticize in some manner. For example, above, I included as a sample the feedback provided by one student to another, and suggested that this feedback does not go deep enough to be of any help to the writer. Honestly, as I was writing that piece, I considered how the writer might respond, and I recast the text to adopt a sort of aloof, academic tone that I hope conveys that I am critical of the response, but also understanding in suggesting ways the response might be improved. I am not criticizing the individual, but rather a sample of text.
I can guarantee, however, that if an informant disagrees with my characterization of a sample of writing, or the implications of an idea or experience that was shared with me, I will offer the individual and opportunity to rebut my interpretation, or, if they choose, I will remove the offensive material.
Publication
To offset the potential for ethical abuse in publication, as well as increase the face validity of the research and incorporate multiple perspectives, and to support democratic, emancipatory, and student-centered teaching, this project will be open at each stage to student reaction and input. I cannot, in good conscience, be secretive and authoritarian when it is my belief (at this point) that these practices, and principles, are part of what undercut substantial and significant feedback in the first place.
I am responsible for what is said in the final report and I believe that allowing student (and peer) review will improve the accuracy and candor of my written findings. I will leave anonymous material that might in some way compromise or hurt the reputation of an informant, yet, if they so choose, use, whenever possible, the direct thoughts and words of those who contribute significantly to our understanding of this project. The story I tell here will be the myriad voiced story of student and teacher as both struggle to learn and grow and improve practices and understanding in common.
In Plato’s dialogue, the Meno, Socrates takes up the issue of whether virtue can be taught. Plato’s dialogue suggests an interesting educational paradigm: if we need to know something, consult an expert. In this case, Meno, seeking an answer to the question, “can virtue be taught,” consults Socrates. Socrates does not, however, give Meno the answer he desires – Socrates pleads ignorance, coercing Meno into discovering an answer for himself, by some other process other than consulting an authority.
The past four months have been a struggle for me within my own practice. The semester began brightly, and I felt a sudden rush of optimism after discussing my students’ responses to the diagnostic essay prompt I had given to them. We engaged in a lengthy conversation about what it means to be a student. The fieldnotes I recorded after this class meeting reveal this burgeoning optimism:
I think my students may understand somewhat better the role of the student in this teaching and learning endeavor. I think my students might understand why and when it is appropriate to take the reins, and make their learning their own, rather than simply trying to please teacher (1/27/2005).
Like Socrates, I want my students to take charge of their own learning to write well. They are an essential part of the equation. A number of theorists support this position that in order for students to learn well, to learn truly, they must take charge, and take responsibility for their own learning (Berlin, Elbow, Shor, Finkel, Freire, etc). However, it wasn’t soon after this whole-class discussion that the bastion of hope and optimism I had built began to crumble. In one class, I was trying to explain different conceptions of knowledge and where it is located – inside subjective self or outside in objective reality. I used what I thought was a beautiful metaphor, a notebook, to represent the two different paradigms, but, alas, in the end:
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, after all, they are all students . . . (1/31/2005).
This issue of epistemology necessarily burdens students, like the ancient mariner’s albatross, and is one that cries to be addressed, so, why then would they not meet me halfway?
In a writing class, viewing the self as a meaning-maker, rather than meaning-perceiver, impacts both how and what we write. In a history class, accepting meaning as the privileged domain of teacher ensures the student a passive and distanced relationship with what is being learned. As a student, epistemology is never far from sight.
A few weeks after this, I noted:
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 (2/14/2005).
The struggle to entice students to take ownership of their own learning did not lessen, and, in fact, only became more apparent as the weeks wore on and we began peer feedback exercises. Paulo Freire writes, “Education must begin with the solution of the teacher-student contradiction, by reconciling the poles of the contradiction so that both are simultaneously teachers and students” (53). Peer feedback offers student an opportunity to begin to reconcile the poles Freire speaks to. This is not to say that in completing revision feedback, the responder need adopt the role of teacher and grade the piece, but rather, the student, having been exposed to the same context and content, and writing for similar pretenses, can give hints and suggestions to another writer/learner engaged in a similar activity. In addition, feedback, even descriptive feedback, is evaluative in the sense that the reader, ideally, should convey to the writer what was happening to them, moment by moment, as they worked through the piece in front of them.
From my perspective as a teacher, I know that nothing has taught me more about myself as a writer than reading and responding to other writers, namely student writers – being teacher. Moreover, there is a wealth of research that argues the necessity and importance of peer feedback in any writing situation, and, in fact, this idea birthed the whole notion of teaching writing using a workshop model. So, why doesn’t it work in my classes?
In any given semester, I receive a number of e-mails similar to this one:
Can you please take a look at my rough draft for this 3rd essay. I need critiques, and I feel as if I'm not getting that. I'm not pleased with the (late) middle portion of the paper, as well as the ending. As I wrote this I didn't know where to bring it to an end. It ends too abruptly....what can I do to fix this? (3/28/2005)
This student feels slighted by her peers’ responses. She wants more, and recognizes the need for more, beyond improving her grade, but to truly understand her material and how she’s writing about it.
This is one of the responses the student above is reacting to:
The first sentence tells me exactly what I will be reading about. It is the bones of the essay. I enjoyed reading your essay very much, and thanks for sharing. It is nice information to have for civics class (3/26/2005).
This response references what Peter Elbow terms the “Bones” of the essay, or the essay’s underlying purpose or focus, beyond the subject or topic, but rather the author’s stance towards that topic, but it reveals little to the original writer about the reader’s understanding of the essay. The responder explains that this is “nice information for a civics class,” but does not qualify the statement. What is nice information for a civics class? Why is it nice information? Why does the information matter?
I should mention at this point that I have used a number of different strategies to try and get students involved and to actively participate in peer feedback. I have used very detailed questionnaires, an open-ended writing process, verbal feedback, modeling, and various other means of trying to teach feedback, each with varying success, but none that satisfy me in the least.
As I see it, this issue is one of many colors, one of the primaries being the issue of power and democracy in the classroom, and, another, of where meaning is made. If the student sees any single essay, any single journal response, as one with only one right answer, then the feedback paradigm, one which privileges collaboration, and understands language as a socially-constructive process, implodes. Furthermore, if students refuse active participation in the learning, and bestow upon teacher the god-like power of ultimate arbiter, then the feedback paradigm breaks down. In order for feedback to work, students must accept the democratic nature of the writing classroom, be willing participants, and be willing to accept the sometimes difficult idea that knowledge is made in-process.
Part Two: Remedy
Overview
This study is intended to examine the issue of peer review / feedback in the college composition classroom. My biggest question is what can I do to foster significant feedback between peers in a writing class? What else can I do to improve the substance of peer feedback?
Post-Process composition theory understands language as socially constructed, with meaning negotiated among all involved rhetors, which makes the successful institution of a system of peer review essential to a student’s understanding and growth as a writer in the post-process composition classroom.
This study will examine students’ conceptions of power and authority in the classroom; seek to discover the student’s understanding of epistemology, or, according to them, where meaning is located in reference to self. Finally, this study will pair students, anonymously, with students from another section of the same class. Each section will complete feedback on the other section’s essays. It is my hope that the anonymity afforded each responder will allow them to open themselves to the words presented to them on the page.
In the end, it is my hope to come to understand what issues impact the successful integration of peer feedback into a composition course. I hope to understand how issues of power and democracy in the composition classroom affect peer review, and how a student’s personal understanding of where meaning is made influences their responses, and their thinking about the responses they receive.
Location
In positioning myself with regard to this project, I imagine one of the largest obstacles to my understanding the student’s experience and perspective with feedback is my role as teacher. I have evaluated and offered feedback on thousands of student writing samples. As a teacher, I could probably chart my own progression through various stages and types of feedback. I recall, vividly, for example, as a 1st year teaching assistant, editing and proofreading my students’ essays. The first batch of essays I graded took me 16 hours to complete -- a single section! As I grew and matured and a teacher, this sort of response became tedious, and I suppose my own feeling of the futility of such feedback prompted me to seek alternatives. In the end, I have many hours of trial and error to account for the stance and attitudes I have towards the value and function of feedback, something I am asking my students to develop in a matter of 16 weeks. The difference here, however, is that I was never given any formal instruction regarding how to respond to student writing, and I am trying, in my classes, to explain to the best of my ability, the role and function of feedback.
Moreover, I came of age in the 80’s, and during this period, education was dominated by standardized testing and outcomes assessment. My teachers had the freedom to teach as they saw fit. Mr. Berger sat us down for fifty minutes and made us write. Mr. Anderson hammered us with skill and drill, while Mr. Burkman taught us writing by making us read great books, then write critical analyses of them. I respected my teachers, gave them the power over me I thought was their due, and did my work dutifully, not because I was particularly interested.
I developed as a student in the years that followed, and I began to develop my own interest in the things I learned, so much so, that now that I am back in school, I sometimes have difficulty being obedient and doing as I’m told rather than what I choose. I understand the power I have as a learner, and I know my own process well. I understand the inevitable struggle that comes with learning -- the physical discomfort, the nervous chatter in my own head, the struggle to find just the right word – and I relish it. I am empowered. I want this gift for each and every one of my students, each and every one of this study’s participants.
Methods
Assessing student’s understanding of the location of meaning, their power in any given classroom, and how to improve the substance of peer feedback will require a number of different methodologies.
To understand how students see the power dynamic in the classroom, I will rely on coded analyses of the diagnostic essay prompt all students complete at the beginning of my college writing course. In addition, I will record fieldnotes covering the group discussion of the prompt, and rely on individual interviews with students willing to spend the time.
To examine the student understanding of epistemology, I will rely on coded fieldnotes and transcriptions of large group discussions and lectures I conduct on the matter, as well as recorded interviews with students willing to share their views on the subject.
As far as the effect of using paired and anonymous sections for peer review, and examining its effect, I will rely on the student’s work itself. We will use an online peer feedback program published by Bedford / St. Martin’s, “COMMENT,” to complete and catalog comments. Comment allows students to comment directly on a digital copy of their peer’s paper, and these comments are saved and cataloged. As the course administrator, I am able to compile and print each individual student’s remarks chronologically, and trace each student’s remarks and, thus, development as a responder.
I have collected and saved, although not coded, three semesters worth of “traditional” feedback students have completed in my courses over the past twelve months. If expedient, I will compare the sorts of remarks students make in what is essentially a face-to-face situation with those completed anonymously.
What are the ethical implications for students involved in such a project? Well, I suppose participation in such a study must be voluntary, and students should understand the whether they choose to participate or not, there will be no direct bearing on their grade for the course; however, active participation, because they are graded on the feedback they provide to their peers during the normal course of the class, they might benefit over those who choose not to participate, but to volunteer does not guarantee a better grade, while, likewise, failing to participate does not guarantee a lower grade.
Subjects, Subjectivity, and Relationships
The communities touched by such research include students, me as classroom teacher, and possibly other professionals in the composition field.
I have power over the students. In the end, I will assign them a grade based on the feedback they tender, as well as an overall grade for their development as a writer in my course. Assuming this project, or something like it, becomes part of my doctoral dissertation, my UMSL advisor will have power over me.
There is the potential for my abuse of the trust my students place in me as a professional and their teacher. Potentially, some of their work, thoughts, ideas, maybe even words could be lifted by me and passed off as my own without attribution. Overall, however, I believe such work will strengthen the trust students have of me as we work closely to define and reconcile a common issue we both confront in our separate roles and teacher and student.
There is also the potential for the harm of individual students by other students. For example, in an essay about the death of a loved one, a multifaceted and emotional issue, it may be that under normal circumstances, students asked to respond to such work rely on ambiguity and trite, but safe, statements, however, in asking them to respond substantively, a student might inadvertently offend or hurt the other student’s feeling by responding inappropriately. To combat such a possibility, it might be advisable to include a statement in the syllabus, consent form, with each activity, that if one feels uncomfortable in responding to an essay because the issue addressed feels too emotionally or personally charged, they may opt out of responding to such work.
In the end, I hope to empower students by offering them a participant role in the research and results. This feels essential to me as a teacher and researcher.
Consequences
I do believe different kinds of consent may be required. In addition to a blanket consent to participate, since I plan on involving students heavily and including their perspectives, and words where appropriate, and individual consent to publish is in order for those student who compile material that will be used in some substantive manner.
I’m torn regarding anonymity. On the one hand, if student work is included, those students should receive full credit for their participation and contribution. This raises the stakes for them. It also legitimates their perspective, showing them the power and efficacy of their language and ideas.
I’m concerned, however, about attributing work that I might criticize in some manner. For example, above, I included as a sample the feedback provided by one student to another, and suggested that this feedback does not go deep enough to be of any help to the writer. Honestly, as I was writing that piece, I considered how the writer might respond, and I recast the text to adopt a sort of aloof, academic tone that I hope conveys that I am critical of the response, but also understanding in suggesting ways the response might be improved. I am not criticizing the individual, but rather a sample of text.
I can guarantee, however, that if an informant disagrees with my characterization of a sample of writing, or the implications of an idea or experience that was shared with me, I will offer the individual and opportunity to rebut my interpretation, or, if they choose, I will remove the offensive material.
Publication
To offset the potential for ethical abuse in publication, as well as increase the face validity of the research and incorporate multiple perspectives, and to support democratic, emancipatory, and student-centered teaching, this project will be open at each stage to student reaction and input. I cannot, in good conscience, be secretive and authoritarian when it is my belief (at this point) that these practices, and principles, are part of what undercut substantial and significant feedback in the first place.
I am responsible for what is said in the final report and I believe that allowing student (and peer) review will improve the accuracy and candor of my written findings. I will leave anonymous material that might in some way compromise or hurt the reputation of an informant, yet, if they so choose, use, whenever possible, the direct thoughts and words of those who contribute significantly to our understanding of this project. The story I tell here will be the myriad voiced story of student and teacher as both struggle to learn and grow and improve practices and understanding in common.
posted by CA Lund at 12:17 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home