True and Abnormal

I know that we all don't typically have really stellar things to say about LA's readings, and normally I want to defend them. Sure I poke a hole here and there and ask some fairly obvious question, but this chapter in particular I found it really hard to understand what I was even supposed to do when it came to true experiments. It seemed like just as I got my footing on what true experiments were, they threw a list of things to make sure that I didn't manage to do during the course of the experiment. I especially loved the Type I and Type II errors. But all these errors made me wonder how many research projects can really manage to fit into this research model without there being speculation as to the validity of the findings.

As for the Mortensen article, I was pleasantly surprised with how interesting I thought that his research question was. I liked that he was curious as to the talk that surrounded writing and the various contexts involved. As one of the few people in this class who are not in an occupation that involves the current education system, I probably read this article significantly differently. When Mortensen wrote about the "triplet," meaning "the teacher initiates, the student responds, and the teacher evaluates" I only have experience as the student. On the same token I also have experience in another kind of evaluating, which would come from selecting text for publication or editing a mailer or postcard for a client. I saw this article as having a much larger scope than just the classroom, which was something that I would have really liked to see. The language of talking about writing is not only limited to the classroom. While it would be much easier to study discussion regarding the language of writing evaluation in an education setting, I couldn't help but think how often talking about writing comes into play in my daily life. Perhaps this makes me an abnormality?

Not All Grades Are Created Equal.

When I started off the Lauer and Asher piece, I have to say that I was quite overwhelmed. The various grids and drawings were almost white noise and, as I read on, I was hoping to find some clarity. But, like with most of my leanings into the various readings, I'm usually left with more questions. Here, some of the questions I had in regards to predictability were a little frightening, perhaps because they seemed so obvious to me. For starters, I thought it was obvious that they would take something like a GPA or an SAT score to determine some type of relationship or average to expect from students, even their previous grades in composition classes. However, it was when I took a moment to think about this, by using these methods of measurement, they aren't only measuring the students, their measuring the teachers as well.

What seemed to be lost in these various matrix is that two teachers don't necessarily teach the same way, nor do any two students learn the same way. Are the students who have an A for English teacher and a C from another completely thrown out. Are the class syllabus's looked through to make sure that their are an equal number of writing assignments given to each and that one wasn't dominated by one thing over another. It just seemed to be a gaping hole, and while using something like the SAT's (which is standardized) may not see totally fair, here it actually might be. Otherwise, I can see too many other variables where the grade would be impacted.

On a whole, the creation of the matrix and the charts honestly seemed less confusing than a lot of the terminology that was thrown around. I feel that the only way to really understand how one of these matrixes work would be to actually use them.

When it came to the Brodkey article, I have to admit, when it opened up with Foucault, I was a little nervous. (Let's just say I had a bad experience.) In this instance though, I followed the concepts of subject and thought that it was interesting when she talked about students taking the role of the teacher in group assignments, but like many of my counterparts, she does seem very critical of pretty much everything. The one thing I did find interesting about the study was the actual way that she did the study, through the exchange of letters. I felt like it was something that I hadn't really seen before in terms of an academic study, and I though that as a reading it was an interesting diversion from the heavy statistics that plague the Lauer and Asher book.

Survey Says...

Of the two readings this week, I was more drawn to the Kirsch article. I'll admit, after reading the Lauer and Asher text detail the various definitions, methodologies and strategies surrounding surveying, reading the phonebook probably would have been a nice break, but I liked several aspects of the article. The idea of pluralism within research methods is something that we've talked about fairly often throughout the semester as a means of bumping up our research to give it more clout, especially when looking at in the context of case studies and ethnographies. Usually, the sort of thing that they're suggesting is something that will produce a quantitative result, something that can be carried by numbers without much interpretation. In this weeks readings we got both ends of the spectrum: we got a big pile of numbers and then a big pile of data that begged to be interpreted.

What struck me about the Lauer and Asher text detailing the various sampling and survey information was that in order to make these numbers not only convincing but important, inferences and research had to be done painstakingly beforehand. I naturally compared the work between crunching a set of numbers and writing and rewriting survey questions with that of actually interacting with people and I began to wonder which could tell you more about a set. There are positive and negatives to both methods: qualitative could have some discrepancy with the observations and quantitative could have discrepancies with the representative results of a set. Constructing survey's to back up your qualitative studies though was one thing that I wasn't sure was totally addressed in the chapter. It s made very clear that survey's don't allow for very many inferences at all because they are solid numbers to represent a larger population, but what would you do with survey's received from your control group from your observation experiments? What kind of inferences could you possibly make about that information that would pertain to your numbers.

I guess what ultimately bothers me about the various ideas of numerics used throughout this chapter is that by taking these various random samples, you are supposed to some how take into account the methods of a range of different people. I wonder if I'm alone in being frightened by the thought that some random "integer" next to me could be selected to represent where I fall within this spectrum without me ever being consulted. It helps me see some of the gray area in the numerics as well, and depending on how charts and numbers are depicted, they can tell a story that may not be any better than a case study or ethnography.

Less is More?

After going through the readings, I was initially trying to contrast ethnography's and case studies looking for some higher form a clarity to determine which of these methods was more viable. Both of these had lists of flaws with them, but curiously the ethnography didn't assume that the observer had to be unbiased. In fact, it encouraged bias. Why was it that when observing a community a bias was encouraged but when observing a single case it was viewed as not only being misleading but brought to mind questions as to the merit of examining a single case? Why is an observer allowed to make inferences about a larger community but not a single individual with whom they come in contact with? Does this have to do with skewing observations because if that's the case, how could one not become skewed when observing a community they take part in like Moss does in her essay.

Are the things that Moss finds when looking through the community of her own African-American church supposed to live up to the same scrutiny as some of the case studies that we looked at last week? Does observing a community give you more power because of its setting? Also, oddly enough, I thought that while plenty was done to give us as researchers viable ways of bulking up the credibility of our case study papers, there wasn't nearly as many ways to enhance the ethnography. Going through all the things that could potentially poke holes in it was like admiring Swiss cheese at the deli.

The other questions I had were primarily from the Lauer and Asher in regards to coding the various information. When observing a whole community and having so many different issues at hand in the community that can contribute to the various things being researched I can't even imagine how you would code these things. It seemed overwhelming coding a single person through various sets of eyes, but an entire community through different lens, that just seems like an overwhelming task for it to be subject to so many pitfalls.

Stating My Case

Initially, I was not too enthusiastic about reading about the validity of a case study. I can’t say that my opinion has completely changed, but I found various things in the articles that I did draw connections to and find revealing.

A case study being focused around a single, solitary interactive experience between an observer and a subject seems to be met with mixed reviews from the texts. In the Lauer and Asher text I have to agree with the statements that they made it seem overly complicated to establish any type of validity. I especially loved the idea that they suggested another party be around to verify the results, but how to you do that with a single student and with something like writing, which in so many cases can be subject. How many norming sessions will observers have to go through to make sure that a student is “normal” enough to be studied?

 

In the Kirsch and Sullivan, they are slightly more optimistic, saying that case studies do have their place but that “To write a case study that works, the writer needs to see the data in terms of one of a variety of culturally grounded narratives,” (135) while at the same time cautioning observers of the dangers of having too much narrative in a study. Isn’t the compelling thing about the study going to be the narrative while having enough objectivity to evaluate what it is that’s happening during the interactions between observers and their subjects? My questions primarily revolve around how we are supposed to construct a completely objective narrative. Even with all the supporting details that fly around in both texts, couldn’t even our choice to report our findings in narrative form shoot us in the foot?

Observing and Just Hanging Out

There were several things about observations techniques that I found interesting while reading through Adler and Adler’s article. Some of the areas that I took a particular interest in was the section dedicated to the researchers being involved in the community in which they are studying. This would seem very conducive to a lot of the studies that we’ve been discussing in class, especially in regards to the teachers who want to try different methods on their students and gage the various results these students have. In those cases, the teacher is directly influencing their observers.

However, what I found interesting was the concept of casual observers inside a specific community minimally involving themselves but achieving a sense of one-ness with the community itself. I wondered as to whether or not being part of the community in which you’re studying, even with as many scholarly blinders as one can put on, can effect your observations. I think the same could be said for most observation techniques where subjects are allowed to interact directly with their observers. On one hand, this can be a powerful way of gathering information and insight about particular subjects that can help to formulate conclusions, but I can’t help but think that there is a danger in the idea of being "too close."

In some ways, I wondered how much of this could be considered ‘observing’ and how much could be considered ‘hanging out.’ What immediately leapt to mind was my relationship with my co-workers. At my job, I’m jokingly referred to as "Switzerland;" nobody really dislikes me, I have a couple of people I’d consider a casual friend, but by and by, I’m completely neutral. With this said, I would feel comfortable observing these people but I have a relative connection to them even though I’m not actively involved with them. I have the ability to be critical and in some cases unbiased, but even with that being the case, I know that as part of this community I'm influencing it and I'm also unable to see things that happen when I'm not there.

Adler and Adler suggested having other observers and formal ways of gaging the information obtained, which is helpful in having objectivity, but I couldn't help but want to poke holes in the observations that were made when people were already part of a community. I might just think that objectivity is impossible when you actually are involved. If you do a study and people are brought to a specific room or sat down in front of a camera, it does change how they want to be percieved. I also know first hand that if you walk into a public area, look around and start taking notes, people do notice. Example:I loved writing a summer camp and I would often write about my camp-mates and it made my other campers as well as my counselors so uncomfortable that I was spoken to about it several times. I was 12 people, I was just free writing what I saw. I even showed the writings about kickball and arts n' crafts to them. (Actually, that made things worse. They took my notebook away.)

Adler and Adler do stress combining the observational research that one obtains with another method of gathering information. After practically running observational techniques through a cheese grater, I'd like to know about some ways to support my findings so someone can't do this to me.

Conflict Resolution

The reading for this week served as a good stepping stone to the start of composition research. There were two points of interest in the particular readings. The first was the term “motivating dissatisfaction.” This term was coined in the introduction of ”Composition Research Empirical Designs.” This idea of a motivating dissatisfaction to create a research experiments seems like the most effective way to create a study that will be not only useful but applicable to the parties involved.

The other excerpt that I found incredibly interesting was the intense conflict that existed in Ede’s article in regards to practice and theory. If we look at this practically, we need both the practice and theory and neither one can truly exist without the other. Without any theory to back up their methodology, practitioners would be teaching blindly. On the other hand, without practitioners trying each of these different theories, theorists would never know what was effective outside of their bubble of study.

It seemed to me that these are all key ingredients to beginning a research study. Where all of these points meet, its nexus will help steer the budding researcher into different methodologies, hypothesis, and procedures. I thought this was particularly an enlightening view of theory for me because, as a tendency mu leanings are more towards practice. When reading this, I found that a great deal of how I shift my practice from one to another comes directly from the theoretical influence I’m exposed to plus my own evaluation of what is going on in my “practice session.”

Alvarez talked about the ideas of teacher-research, which I also think goes a great team with the overlap of practice and theory. Alvarez also states that “To engage in research as an experienced teacher means that we have accepted a problem, detached it from our identity and self-esteem, and found a new way to make relevant again what we are practicing in the classroom with our students.” I think that this statement also takes into account the idea that teachers can find it hard to detach the problems of various education processes from their own ability. Just because you want to improve something isn’t admitting one’s own failure, and by creating a research study to improve technique and strategies is a direct correlation between theory and practice.

As for the writings themselves, I also appreciated the different narratives, both in Alvarez and Ede. Although, I found Ede’s much more interesting, especially as she documented the ranting of North, a very obvious proponent of theory and opponent of anything having to do with practice. I found these extreme oppositions to either side of the argument both encouraging and discouraging. How could we be expected to teach in a vacuum? The introduction was just what an introduction should be, laying the groundwork for the other readings in the book.