"Painless" publishing? Perish the thought

I need an attitude check about publishing in academe. My heart is just not in it.

My background and experience as a high school Language Arts teacher have something to do with it. Writing instruction has changed considerably over the last several decades. I am deeply indebted to the reader/writer workshop model and practitioner-scholars such as Lucy Calkins, Linda Rief, and Nancy Atwell, who have influenced my personal approach to writing as well as how I frame instruction for young writers.

So, for example, with an ulterior motive informed by the fact that my son insists he "hates" reading, I announced recently over dinner one night that he was going to write books this summer. His immediate response was, "Can we publish them?" Now, that makes my heart swell!

Publishing redefined
Where I come from, "publishing" simply means sharing your writing with an audience of at least one (and not just your teacher). My son is only seven years old, and he already grasps this notion, reinforced not only by me but his Kindergarten and first-grade teachers, too.

This is a monumental K-12 instructional reform. Just ask your parents or grandparents to recall their own memories of learning to write. They will likely regale you with horror stories of weekly themes written strictly for the English teacher, who heavily inscribed each page of the students' composition notebooks in red pen, possibly encoding her feedback using one of the cryptic, numerical hierarchies of English grammar errors, such as Warriner's or UT's own Hodges Harbrace handbook. (And you thought journal reviewers were mean!)

Those of us of a certain age can probably recall being told by well-intentioned English teachers never to use the first-person and never to write in this-or-that color of ink.  I suppose it's all part of being socialized into academic Discourse, which serves a purpose, but by virtue of its sheer dominancy in K-12 education and beyond, has all but eclipsed other legitimate ways of being, communicating, and publishing.

For example, some in academia look askance upon digital and web-based publishing. As a matter of professional survival, graduate students and untenured faculty avoid publication in open-access, online journals for fear it will be discounted in decisions about hiring, promotion, and tenure. As Rich (2012) warns: "Remember that not all peer-reviewed journals are equal nor will these likely be evaluated equally on the job market" (p. 378).

Still. I am intrigued by online journals such as New Horizons For Learning, supported by Johns Hopkins University.  It has an established history of open-access online publishing for manuscripts pertaining to all aspects of education. Part of the New Horizons mission is to create a lab of ideas through a virtual roundtable of expert professionals.  The journal puts forth a call for open submissions for publication, and participants vet the content through a "generative process" on the website. It's a complete revisioning of peer-reviewed publication.

So, I bristle a bit upon receiving well-intentioned advice about having "a competitive publishing record" (Rich, 2012, p. 376). I guess I am just having myself a sort of "Norm Denzin" moment. But, then, I consider Tracy's (2010) argument for developing universal standards of quality for rigor and trustworthiness in qualitative research, and I can appreciate the usefulness of criteria for evaluation. As Tracy says, "...[G]uidelines and best practices regularly serve as helpful pedagogical launching pads across a variety of interpretive arts" (p. 838).

I am reminded of the old adage: you must learn the rules before you can break the rules.

Why should the writing process, including the publication stage, be any less rigorous? From a sociocultural perspective (my preferred lens), it makes sense. The writing process is a continual learning process, in which the learner, or in this case, writer, must use and internalize the external tools of the trade (i.e. "rules" and conventions of language use and representation) before she can expertly innovate and break new literary ground with them.

SOAPP
One of my favorite "pedagogical launching pads" in the classroom was a mnemonic to scaffold students' thinking as they approached new writing tasks and performance “prompts.”  The mnemonic was “SOAP,” which stood for “subject, occasion, audience, and purpose,” as in, “What is the subject?  What is the occasion for writing?” and so on.  Later I modified SOAP, which I came to view as not appropriately acknowledging students’ social and cultural contexts. I added a second "P" to stand for "perspective" or "position." Using the rule of SOAPP, I encouraged students to ask themselves, “What is my position?” and “What is my perspective?”  It was a small step toward leaving the safe but predictable (and oftentimes inauthentic) confines of classroom discourse.

As I read Rich's publishing guide for graduate students, I thought (for the first time in a long time) about my trusty SOAPP heuristic. In my field, literacy scholars often critique academic-based discourses as limiting students’ literacy development and falling short of helping students attend to their own perspectives and identities vis-à-vis writing topics and intended audiences.

Dyson (2004), for instance, speaks of a paradox in her essay “Writing and the Sea of Voices.” During the last part of the 20th century, teachers, riding a wave of socioculturally fueled research, tried hard – too hard it seems – to bridge sociocultural contexts by incorporating more talk and discussion in the classroom. But, the pendulum swung too far, and researchers began to focus new attention on the negative impact of teacher-centered talk on student writing processes. Dyson argues that some teacher-initiated talk may create classroom cultures that are no more culturally relevant than the cognitive and Behaviorist environments that preceded them.

Although her work is dedicated to the social and cultural aspects of K-12 teaching and learning, Dyson's critique of the “dyadic” apprenticeship model inspired me to re-examine Rich's (2013) article. How does his "Quick and (Hopefully) Painless Guide to Establishing Yourself as a Scholar" function as one such "dyadic encounter"? In dispensing his writing advice, how well does Rich address the components of SOAPP, particularly the last "P" ?

Rich immediately launches into the writing "occasion," which refers to both immediate situations and contexts that generate a piece as well as broader contexts that motivate its development. Rich addresses all of these, including the universal "publish or perish" mantra that prods much academic writing. He makes a good point that as soon as one starts graduate school, occasions to conduct research and to write are everywhere. These ideas should be noted or logged for future reference.

What follows is an intertwined discussion of "subject" and "purpose" for writing. Rich encourages readers to choose topics about which they are passionate and for which they have an interest, but the viability of a topic primarily resides in whether or not the author can achieve some meaningful purpose or "contribution" with it. This aligns with advice from other scholars (Kilbourn, Piantanida & Garman), and I respect Rich's avoidance of the clichéd literature "gap." Identifying one's purpose is "the most important question to address" (Rich, p. 376), but to answer the question, one must consider the "complex interplay" between subject and purpose (to use Kilbourn's expression). From a qualitative standpoint, Rich hints at the value of highly subjective, unique interpretive perspectives, when he suggests that "challenging the conventional wisdom has more appeal than reaffirming what is already accepted" (p. 376).

As this article focuses on publishing, the "audience" component figures prominently, from advice on formatting (avoid jargon in subheads) to leveraging peer feedback as a gauge of broader audience appeal. Some of Rich's advice is helpful, but some tips come across as superficial flourishes, at best, to downright pandering, at worst. He instructs ambitious graduate students to scan a desired journal and, "If a journal has recently published something similar on your topic in the past few years, attempt to cite this work; many journals ask the recently published authors to review articles" (p. 377).

And then this: "After you choose a journal for submission, tailor the paper based on the journal's particular theoretical, methodological, or interdisciplinary focus to encourage positive reviews or at least minimize negative remarks" (p. 377). Something about that does not settle well with me, and it has something to do with that other "P."

Save for one comment about developing a "clear and concise style" (p. 378), Rich provides little to no guidance in his "Painless Guide" on developing and maintaining one's personal voice and positionality -- dare I say "integrity"? -- during the tumultuous publishing process.

Writing for an audience is a skill. Not too long ago, being a published author was an accomplishment enjoyed by an elite few. That is still true in academia, but other genres of writing and writing communities are expanding and reaching new audiences. Authors once shut out from the publishing process are finding a voice.

It's an exciting time, but with opportunity comes responsibility. The publishing process sensitizes the writer to the needs of her audience. Ideally, through the process, the writer also develops and refines her style, voice, and perspective. It should be a mutually reinforcing dynamic, but, in academic publishing, it seems difficult to maintain a balance between the two.

References
Dyson, A. H. (2004). Writing and the sea of voices: Oral language in, around, and about writing. In R.B. Ruddell & N.J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading (5th ed., pp. 146-162). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Kilbourn, B. (2006). The qualitative doctoral dissertation proposal. The Teachers College Record, 108(4), 529–576.

Rich, T. S. (2013). Publishing as a graduate student: A quick and (hopefully) painless guide to establishing yourself as a scholar. PS: Political Science & Politics, 46(02), 376–379.

Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851.

"Painless" publishing? Perish the thought

Goin' on a pattern hunt!

As part of his Kindergarten homework, Henry had to go on a "pattern hunt." We started the hunt immediately upon pulling up to the curb in front of our house after school. With my phone, I took pictures of patterns he identified in the yard and on the porch.

Henry located numerous patterns of shape, size, and color within the American flag, the picket fence, the decorative lights strung on the porch, the poured-concrete pavers on the ground. Patterns, patterns everywhere!

"Look, Henry!" said his grandmother, who was with us. "Here's one," she said, pointing to a series of concentric circles atop a water meter cover.

Henry frowned, not seeing it. "Granny, that is not a pattern.  A pattern is the same and repeats itself," he instructed, before continuing his search.

Well, of course, it was a sort of pattern we were all looking at in the ground. Patterns involve form and/or structure and occur with varying levels of extensiveness and complexity, thus making them "sometimes difficult to recognize" (Wood & Kroger, p. 117).  Henry was so well schooled in the textbook definition of "pattern," he could not wrap his five-year-old mind around an interesting departure from the rule.

This is the challenge of the novice researcher/analyst: striking the right balance of unschooled intuition and basic analytical knowledge. It isn't easy intuiting significance from interestingly deviant cases if you don't "know" a little about what you are looking at.

Recognizing "patterns of interactions"

At once, I think novice analysts may have an advantage insofar as "unmotivated looking" because we are not deeply schooled in the DA/CA literature base. And, yet, as ten Have explains his strategy, "...[T]he starting point is some 'noticing' in the transcript that something 'interesting' seems to be happening at some moment. From that moment on, the purpose of the strategy is to elaborate and contextualize that rather intuitive moment" (p. 124).

It is helpful, then, to possess "a few basic concepts from the CA tradition to structure one's 'looking'" (p. 121), and ten Have's four, fundamental "organizations" from the CA knowledgebase seem incredibly helpful to me as I move forward.

In a similar vein, Wood & Kroger provide lists of "sensitizing devices," lest we become "loose and undisciplined" during our early explorations of the data (p. 91). They acknowledge that it is difficult to know if an interesting feature hasn't already been described elsewhere by other scholars. This has come up earlier in class discussions: how do we keep up with the vast array of features, concepts, and devices? In this regard, it seems the novice is at a disadvantage if not at least generally familiar with the CA/DA literature. No one wants to reinvent the wheel.

In at least one previous blog post, I have worried about not being able to master the vast array of "concepts and devices" emanating from the traditions of DA. For this reason, I enjoyed their discussion of "useful concepts or sets of ideas" that, in some cases, "transcend any particular tradition" (p. 100). Like ten Have's suggested "organizations," which I think Wood & Kroger lump together as "collected dossiers," the list of concepts in Chapter 8 strike me as something to hang onto as I prepare to embark on my own pattern hunt.

Another go-round with context

Context remains at the center of "lively debate" in DA, this time regarding its role in the analysis and interpretation of data. Where, if at all, does information about settings, circumstances, social roles, demographic variables, and so on work its way in?

Context comes from within and without. Wood and Kroger note the "contextualization of utterances is a procedure that is relied upon by participants themselves and is hearable-visable in the discourse that we are analyzing" (p. 128).

It gets dicey around "extrinsic context" -- how much of setting, institutional orders and participant characteristics, class, gender, race, age, and so on, can we draw on in our analysis? Wood and Kroger recommend a "simple" strategy, which we have heard before in class -- it's only relevant if the participants make it relevant. Otherwise, how do you know where to stop? And heavy doses of researcher reflexivity can help mediate the process of determining what is relevant. Wood and Kroger: "It is crucial to emphasize that the recommendation is not to ignore context, to leave out what is important, but to be very careful about how it is brought into analysis" (p. 129).

This is where I have some questions about the document/text we are to locate for our project. I have looked at one primary document, the School Improvement Plan (SIP), a document every public school must compile and submit to the state each year. I located in the SIP a very small bit about the collaborative teaming that I am currently observing. I have reviewed every relevant page of the school website, but this is understandably geared toward students, parents, and community stakeholders and does not include information about the mission, philosophy, purpose, or background of the collaborative team concept or even site-based management in general. I have also sent out emails to a few team members inquiring about documentation. 

But perhaps I should wait and see what kind of paper trail is circulated or produced from within the team when I am there??

Another interesting analytic move related to context that I would like to learn more about is this idea of "extending the boundaries of the interaction under analysis" and developing "ethnographic knowledge" or "shared knowledge" between myself and the participants.  Wood and Kroger say, "Sometimes ethnographic research is necessary." This suggests a longer engagement in the field than I had originally planned, and I am starting the process of requesting an extension from the principal and the head of research for the school district.

ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE. 

Wood, L. A., & Kroger, R. O. (2000). Doing discourse analysis: Methods for studying action in talk and text. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Goin' on a pattern hunt!

DA project update

I have observed twice at my research site "Plan B" (the high school) since Sept. 22. This week brings my third visit to the school and -- finally -- an opportunity to record a full collaborative team meeting between core academic teachers. 

After consulting with my adviser, I have decided to request permission from the building principal to continue fieldwork indefinitely with hopes of turning this project into "something more." I am currently doing a research review for Dr. Allington on the ways in which collaborative dialog, distributed leadership, and shared decision-making support effective literacy instruction. We will see where this goes....

Other than an overarching concern about producing a meaningful transcript in time for the Oct. 13 data session, I would like to share some initial concerns and observations about the site and participants:

1) After listening in on two meetings, I am conscious of the fact that I am really attuned to the content of the talk between teachers and have not really been cognizant or deliberate about talk features and devices. I am growing a little antsy, I guess, because this weeks' chapters are all about pre-analysis and early analysis of discourse, and I am still at the front-end of transcription.  That said, the content of the collaborative team meetings is really interesting (to me) and covers a variety of topics and issues.  I am much more jazzed now about this research plan, than my original Plan A. Funny how things change.

 

2) During the first observation, I sat at the table and chose not to write notes or clack away on my computer because I did not want to put off the group.  Plus, in a way, that constitutes "recording," and I agreed not to record.  So, afterward, I went to the school library and typed up everything that I could remember, first impressions, questions, ideas, etc. On the second observation, I sat away from the table and tapped fieldnotes into my iPad and this proved to be effective, but I was less able to attend to all of the non-verbals, facial expressions, etc.

3) The perfect metaphor for this experience: embedded journalist with a military unit on the front lines of action.  That's how it feels. Some additional observations:

• lots of laughter, humor, camaraderie, "inside" jokes
• lots of micro-level discussion and problem-solving about specific students and student issues (absences, truancy, pregnancy, failing grades, tardies, school transfers, pressures related to family and/or work and financial obligations) So, the somewhat cliched image of educator as "triage expert" comes to mind, but that's my metaphor, not the participants'.
• The bulk of conversation focuses on grades, test scores, passing-failing -- issues of performance as opposed to issues related to actual teaching and learning. And I have heard zero dialog about literacy learning. Perhaps this is the natural outcome of interdisciplinary teaming at a high-needs school, where the problems of students are "shared" between faculty who are making deliberate effort to create a culture of caring. 

4) Some potential problems and challenges pertaining to transcription come to mind:

• lots of overlapping and latching speech
• lots of use of student names.  I can supply pseudonyms for the major participants on the team, but what do I do about the countless student names brought up in conversation?  Last week they probably discussed two dozen different students. Do I insert students' initials into the transcript? Do I use S1, S2, S3, etc.?
• environmental noise (from a photocopier in the meeting room as well as an open door on a hallway filled with students during the passing period) could potentially corrupt some segments of the recordings
• Zan, my pseudonymous friend and primary contact on the team, occasionally addresses me directly to fill in context or to include me in whatever joke is at hand. (I, in fact, know about half of the collaborative team already, so building rapport has proven not to be an issue).  Do I tell her just don't do that anymore?

DA project update

Example of DA study in reading education

I am currently doing a research review of the state-of-the-art in secondary reading instruction.  I am finding that this is variously referred to as "high literacy," "new literacy," "thoughtful literacy," and "higher-order literacy" (Allington & Cunningham, 2007; Langer, 2002). Discussion, or "intelligent literary discourse" (Langer, p. 1), is central to the development of this idea. So, to that end, I had in mind that I would search for a discourse analysis study that focused on some aspect of secondary literacy instruction, but particularly classroom discussion.

I began by searching the recommended discourse analysis journals listed in BlackBoard. I found that my combination of search terms -- literacy (also tried English), high school (also tried secondary), instruction, teachers, and adolescent -- did not yield many results relevant to my research agenda.  Within Google Scholar, I added the search term discourse analysis, and I had more luck finding what appeared to be interesting studies (to me) but nothing that resembled "pure DA." I changed up my approach yet again, going to the combined archives of two top-tier, peer-reviewed journals in my field: Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy and Reading Research Quarterly, both published by the International Reading Association. I discovered that if I did not narrow the "Learner" field (as seen in the screen capture below), I got 18 search returns:

However, even among these 18 results, nothing quite resembled the DA studies we read last week. Several of the studies I previewed were of a case study design that deployed discourse analytic techniques.  Other studies claimed an ethnographic orientation while applying discourse analysis methods. Is this the bricolage effect (Wood & Kroger, pp. 25-26)?  In the past, I have read philosophical and scholarly commentary that compares the educator's work to that of  a bricoleur, and I am now wondering if that isn't being reflected in the work of educational researchers within the qualitative tradition, or at least within the DA tradition.

At any rate, one study in particular caught my eye because of its focus on literature-based instruction and classroom talk with pre-adolescents.  I chose this study to critique.

Clarke, L. W. (2007). Discussing Shiloh: A Conversation beyond the book. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 51, 112-122. doi:10.1598/JAAL.51.2.3

• Context and motivation-In fall 2003 five fifth-grade students appeared to be vigorously discussing literature in student-led group, but Clarke noticed segments of conversation within the transcripts that went "beyond the surface level of the discussion" (p. 113).  Both Clarke and the students' teacher believed in the value of literature discussion groups for improving levels of student engagement and higher-order thinking and problem solving, but Clarke wanted to open up this "common instructional practice to a critical analysis" in hopes of informing classroom teachers how student-led literature groups might be restructured to better serve the literacy skills and future employment opportunities of "working class students" (p. 113). [The literary text being used is the Newbery-winner Shiloh (1991) by  Phyllis Reynolds Naylor.]

• DA tradition-Claiming "influences beyond this text" (p. 113), Clarke used Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) to connect the students' discussion of Shiloh to classroom, school, and community discourses. Specifically, Clarke drew upon the three-part analytic framework devised by Fairclough: description, interpretation, and explanation.

• Methods/data sources-As part of a larger, three-year qualitative study, Clarke video- and audio-taped many discussions and supplement these tapes with observation, field notes, student interviews, focus groups, and student writing samples and journal entries.  For the study at hand, he chose to zero in on a single conversation between five fifth graders, which he said represented themes found across other groups. He coded this conversation for turn-taking sequences as well as other features (listed below) and then performed a content analysis based on length of turns and gender.  He wrote "data narratives" (analytic memos?) around each code (pp. 114-115). During the interpretation phase, Clarke widened his analytic net to include all the other data sources from his three-year study, which he said "gives power to this small example as an illustrative case"  (p. 115). During the final part of Fairclough's framework, which is explanation, Clarke accounted for his interpretations by connecting them to broader "situational, institutional, and societal influences" and the existing literature base on dominant discourse by boys (pp. 117-118).

• Language features attended to (theoretical constructs)-Following Fairclough's guiding question -- "What interactional conventions are used and are there ways in which one participant controls the turns of others?" -- Clarke decided to  focused on turn-taking systems. He also "coded" for sidetracking, center staging, giving orders, using insults, disagreeing, ignoring, using reinforcement, community building, giving listening responses, and interrupting. In the final phase of analysis, Clarke connected local themes of male-dominated discourse between students to an "underlying ideology of male discursive power" and "hegemony" (p. 117).

• Claims made as findings-Clarke identified three major themes in his analysis of the conversation extract; all three themes essentially had to do with a gender imbalance and the male-dominated nature of the conversation. This led him to conclude that the literature circles as they currently functioned in the fifth-grade classroom were a staging ground for "perpetuating gendered discursive roles" (p. 120).  

• So what question?-  Allowing for the fact that student-led literature circles in theory can make a powerful impact on literacy development and the socialization of students, Clarke suggests teachers rework their approach by more careful and considerate literature selections (texts that explore gender issues, for example), direct instruction on group processes, and "re-inserting" themselves into groups as a facilitator/coach.

• Comments/reflections -I really wanted to learn more about the use of CDA in reading and literacy education, but I don't think this particular study is an exemplary model.  For one, I don't buy Clarke's  generalizations about "working-class students" and his shaky substantive claims about student-led discussion groups as a "common instructional practice." (This is simply not supported in the wider literature base.) Moreover, he makes questionable methodological moves, such as using "student informants" to contextualize video segments with him in a sort of member-checking process and relying on a massive data set to guide his interpretations. His efforts resemble triangulation; although, he does not refer to it as such. Overall, I was reminded of Wood and Kroger's discussion of striking a balance when drawing on different perspectives, lest you fall victim to the "pitfalls of eclecticism" (p. 25).

Example of DA study in reading education

Reading notes for Sept. 13

This week's post is a review of discourse analysis (DA) studies from the field of education. First, some overall reflections:

• Most (all?) of this week's articles dealt with the constraints and resources of talk in institutional contexts. The Benwell study gives a nice theoretical frameworks.  Of all the articles, I wish I had read it and the Young and Miller study first.  These authors did exceptional work describing their frameworks.
• Substantively speaking, it's interesting that the object of study in the Buttny and Rath (2007) and Benwell and Stokoe (2002) articles is participant reliance upon talk resources in response to blurred boundaries between school culture and contemporary society. The Cromdal et al. study also examines how participants confront blurred distinctions between once rigidly defined social orders; although, this time it's the peer group and the adult world within the school context.  I think it's exciting the way DA work occurs at the point where cultures collide. A lot of interesting research in my area of interest -- adolescent literacy development -- focuses on "collisions." As a rite of passage, adolescents regularly negotiate boundaries between adult and youth and school and home, with additional tensions produced by membership in cultural, racial, and linguistic minority groups. 
• One methodological move I noticed across all the studies is that findings are not so much asserted as they are suggested.  Claims are worded like inferences or educated guesses and are couched in terms such as "perhaps," "we might," "this may," and "this suggests." 
• Something else I wonder about regarding methodology is this business of attending to "language features." Sometimes I am confused about what is a specific device or feature of talk and what is a broader category or frameworks. However, the Young and Miller (2004) article, which I read last, did a nice job of clarifying. Language is used to create an "interactional architecture" around a common talk practice.  (I like that!) I think I have a better understanding now but wish I had read Young and Miller first.
• A new pedagogical practice introduces a "new routine" (Cromdal et al., p. 205) -- I like to think that's what this blog is generally about!!!

Buttny, R., & Rath, S. K. (2007). Discursive practices in talking problems during a school–family meeting. In A. Hepburn & S. Wiggins (Eds.), Discursive research in practice: New approaches to psychology and interaction (pp. 247-262). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Topic/audience/need for the study-This study examines how participants draw on "conversational resources" (p. 248) when dealing with delicate topics and personal matters during a school-family meeting. According to the authors, it is now more commonplace for school  personnel to confront the "private and interpersonal realm of relationships that may pose problems" in the lives of students (p. 247), whereas, in the past, school officials primarily focused on the academic and vocational pursuits of students.        
Methods/data sources-A "discursive analysis" method was applied to excerpts from a videotaped session between a teenage mother and her family and several school staff members upon the girl's return to school.
Language features attended to-discursive constructions of school and family, social norms and cultural taboos as "conversational resources" that provide "boundaries" (p. 248); agenda statements (see p. 250 for other possibilities); practice of raising "candidate problems" and "candidate problem plus query" (p. 250,251, 252, and in detail on pp. 260-261) and "candidate positioning" (p. 252); false starts and self-repair (p. 251); delicate objects (p. 248 and 251); lexical choice and indexical terms (top of p. 252) used "to construct the issue as a delicate object"; anger, "affect terms," and "the grammar of emotion discourse" (p. 253); co-telling (p. 253); three-part list (p. 253); non-verbal responses and additional transcription to "capture some aspects of gaze" (p. 255); sequential context and accountability sequence (p. 256); proverbial/idiomatic expressions (p. 256); extreme case/apocryphal formulation/exaggeration (p. 259); competence assertions (p. 259). Whoa!
Claims made as findings-The co-director relied on a discursive practice known as "formulating a candidate problem along with a query" to invite family members into dialog about the sensitive issues surrounding teen parenting. The co-director also used "indexical terms" and exaggeration in reference to delicate topics, such as the young woman's sexual activities.  These practices allowed the co-director to probe into delicate topics and areas once considered private, family matters (p. 261).
So what question?-"A problem staff members may face is getting participants to open up and engage in discussing and examining problems" (p. 252) This study describes practices that counselors and school personnel might recognize as being effective or ineffective in dealing with personal and family problems within institutional contexts.  As the authors noted, this analysis is based on a "one-shot" meeting between participants (p. 262), so there is no way to know if the co-director's efforts at opening a dialog, exploring issues, and providing advice will have any lasting impact or positive effect.
Comments/reflections-By attending to different segments/excerpts and different language features, the analyst can conduct multiple studies from the same talk. In passages such as the paragraph at the bottom of p. 251 and again at the top of p. 253, it seems the authors take an interpretive stance using elements from the text to support their claims.  This reminds me of a plot and character analysis in literature. Each time claims are made about a talk feature, the literature is cited, such as the commentary on the grandmother's use of a "three-part list" as appraisal of the improved situation -- Jefferson (1990) is referenced. The pattern seems to be extract, interpretation with supporting evidence, and summary.

Questions-"Discursive analysis" is the same as "discourse analysis"? 

Benwell, B., & Stokoe, E. H. (2002). Constructing discussion tasks in university tutorials: shifting dynamics and identities. Discourse Studies, 4(4), 429-453. doi:10.1177/14614456020040040201

Topic/audience/need for the study-According to the authors, little research has been done on "tutorial discourse in higher education," but in what few studies that have been done, the evidence indicates that the traditional pattern of a teacher-led hierarchy shifts to the control of the tutor with a slight degree more of flexibility afforded to students (p. 431). The authors contend that in their extended analyses, they have observed a more substantial shift in dynamic. To learn more about this shift, they focused on "task-setting sequences" initiated by the tutor, which they say is an under-explored area of tutorial discourse (p. 431).
Methods/data sources-"Classes from three higher education institutions were audio- and video-recorded. The resulting data, which included both tutor-led and peer group discussions, were transcribed and analysed using conversation analysis (CA)." (from the Abstract, p. 429). The first data set includes eight one-hour, undergraduate tutorial sessions from a variety of disciplines. The second data set consisted of  small-group work sessions with three to six participants faciliated by a tutor. The data sessions were transcribed using Jeffersonian transcription. The authors used CA and a "linguistics-based discourse analysis" approach (p. 432).
Language features attended to-The authors pursued "two analytic trajectories" (p. 432): patterns and "three-part structure" (classic IRE) of task-orientation sequences and issues of politeness and "face" based on Goffman's theory (1967). Other features include "features of politeness" and "situated face wants" (p. 435).
Claims made as findings-Two broad themes are discussed: (1) the pedagogical function of tutors' task formulations and turn-taking within those interactions and (2) student resistance to assuming academic identity (briefly introduced on p. 433). While seeming to set a tutor-dominated tone, the three-part formulation may in fact have a student-centered function, as summarized on pp. 441-442. That students make "resistance moves" may be an overall shifting in interactant dynamics within higher education. The authors suggest that these findings challenge conventional thinking about who controls tutorial discourse.
So what question?-In their discussion Benwell and Stokoe take up broader points that go "beyond the local dynamics of educational talk," such as the shift in higher ed culture in which students assume a consumer stance toward courses and institutions. What students seem to want is the old-style, "transmission"  instructional mode, which rejects constructivist-informed pedagogy and may reflect an overall societal hostility to intellectualism. The authors, however, caution against such pat interpretations, saying that this is more than just another example of "dumbing down." Instead, they argue that the students and tutors are acting strategically as a response to the influence of "wider cultural imperatives" on traditional academic identities and contexts (pp. 449-450). 
Comments/reflections-This study gives a nice theoretical frameworks, which is not always provided in articles. The tutors' reformulations of tasks upon failure of student uptake (signified by pauses), makes me think of the pedagogical concept of increasing "wait time" before and after student responses. It's supposed to be something like 5 seconds. You rarely see pauses of that length in the transcripts here, even though the topics (such as quantum physics and postmodernist literature) certainly suggest a need for more wait time!!!!

Questions-"Task formulations," as defined by Garfinkle & Sacks (1970) is a broad category with many variations within it??? Also, is it a common move for the researcher to simply say, "This talk feature is 'functionally ambiguous' and here is my guess as to what's going on"? (See top of p. 441.)

Cromdal, J., Tholander, M., & Aronsson, K. (2007). “Doing reluctance”: Managing delivery of assessments in peer evaluation. In A. Hepburn & S. Wiggins (Eds.), Discursive research in practice: New approaches to psychology and interaction (pp. 203-223). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Topic/audience/need for the study- Cromdal, Tholander, and Aronsson posit that while a lot has been written about the existence of "social orders in schools," very little has been said about the practices that allow adult and peer cultures to co-exist (p. 203).  In this study, they examine "merging points" between school/adult and peer cultures within a teacher-led peer evaluation exercise among eighth graders. Like the participants in the Benwell and Stokoe (2002) study, these students display reluctance to the task, and their teacher must call upon certain "interactional devices" to deal with this (pp. 203-204). According to Cromdal et al., all of this is an outcome of the "collaborative turn" in education in which problem-based learning and student-centered instruction puts more responsibility for learning on the students.  Students are caught up in a weird tension between the requirements for membership within their peer group and the new institutional order within the school. This study specifically focuses on the practices of participants to deal with this dilemma.
Methods/data sources-The basis for the authors' analysis is a 20-minute excerpt from a peer evaluation session between five eighth-graders and their teacher.
Language features attended to-the teacher's use of "psychological construct" in task formulation and re-formulation (pp. 206-207); the teacher's sequential organization of the task; a variety of student practices for resistance of task, such as humor, emotion, outright objection, passivity, stalling maneuvers, loss of eye contact, non-precise qualifiers, and humming (pp. 207-209 and again on p. 213)
Claims made as findings-The students feed off each other's talk resources to avoid the socially sensitive task of group critique. The students' collaborative displays of reluctance "orient to an underlying moral order of the group, a form of group solidarity against the institutional requirement of more elaborate and critical comments" (p. 215). Cromdal et al. relate this to Wiedner's (1974) "telling the code," a way of vocalizing group solidarity (p. 219). The teacher successfully exploits shifts between purpose and tone of the interaction in a way that suggests he wants to help the students save face; although, "face" is not a theoretical construct invoked in the study.
So what question?-Administrators and instructional leaders might use these findings to inform implementation of problem-based learning within classrooms and across institutions. The public and teacher-dominated manner of the peer-evaluation sessions "presents a range of practical concerns for all parties involved" (p. 219). In other words, before implementing the "institutional agenda," it's important to  attend to required shifts in curriculur focus and teacher preparedness/professional development.
Comments/reflections-Researcher jargon: how would you like to be described as "massively indexed"?  Ha, ha. I don't know why, but that term just strikes me as so funny. I prefer more colloquial or idiomatic expressions like, "wearing one's heart on one's sleeve" or "I could read her like a book." But I guess there isn't a place for that in scholarly write-ups. I do like the term "culture contact," attributed to Mackay (1975) and Speier (1976).  

Graff, N. (2009). Classroom talk: Co-constructing a “difficult student.” Educational Research, 51(4), 439-454. doi:10.1080/00131880903354782

Topic/audience/need for the study-Graff takes up the issue of "difficult" relationships with students and how these students come to be "constructed as 'problems.'" He says that the largely "White, middle-class teaching force" can especially relate to this issue in this era of heightened sensitivity to learning differences and cultural diversity. Many studies have already explored broad patterns of talk between teachers and students; Graff seeks to align his work with a smaller body of literature that examines the impact of talk on individual students. He asserts that most studies to not focus on how talk constructs teacher-student relationships. In the study at hand, Graff looks at one teacher-student relationship through three talk excerpts. He is guided by the following research question: What role does the public nature of classroom talk play in casting the relationship between a particular teacher and a particular student as "difficult"? (p. 440)

Methods/data sources-Graff collected field data for two weeks as a participant observer, taking field notes and talking informally with teacher and students.  Then, for eight weeks he videotaped the class using field notes to cue times on the tapes. He created Jeffersonian transcripts from audio tapes, using the video tapes to fill in non-verbals. Graff employs a "systems perspective" (p. 441) that views all behavior and interactions as meaningful communication and that is based on three levels of interaction: message, interaction, and pattern (pp. 441-442). Specifically, Graff performs a conversational analysis on the message-level of  three episodes between a "difficult" student, Hugh Jass (hahahaha), and his teacher, Ms. Martin. He also draws on the work of Goffman's (1981) "participation frameworks" (p. 440). 

Language features attended to-Generally, the IRE/IRF mode of instruction is a predominant factor in this study. Other features mentioned: Hugh's public "by-play" (p. 446); peer responses during and after exchanges between Hugh and his teacher, which serve to create "sides" and cast Hugh as an outsider of the classroom learning community (p. 447 and again on pp. 450-451); pronouns used by both student and teacher (p. 450)

Claims made as findings-Graff claims that the "public nature of interactions" between teacher and students during whole-group instruction gives rise to "complications" that can result in some individuals (such as Hugh) being cast as outsiders to the classroom learning community (p. 445 and again on p. 451). Two patterns of interaction seem to complicate Ms. Martin's relationship with Hugh in the classroom: 1) how she reinforced norms of participation to maintain classroom order, and 2) how she attended to the "rightness or wrongness" of Hugh's answers (p. 445).

So what question?-Based on his initial observations of Ms. Martin and Hugh interacting in the eighth-grade classroom, Graff wondered about the nature of "difficult relationships" and how they form. Through close examination of teacher-student interaction he seeks to answer these questions. Graff suggests that the more a student is perceived as "difficult," the more likely it is he or she will decline "opportunities for productive participation" (p. 451). Thus, the pattern of difficulty is exacerbated in a downward spiral. There are many implications for teachers, not least of which is a re-examination of our use of the IRE/IRF.  According to Graff, his study provides evidence that teachers should vary instructional modes.  Additionally, teachers should exercise "awareness" and allow interpersonal and affective considerations to enter into their decision-making in and around their interactions with particular students who might otherwise not experience success (p. 452). 
Comments/reflections-I am interested in Goffman's work as it is described here and is cited within many of the other readings. I would like to learn more about his work. 

Young, R. F., & Miller, E. R. (2004). Learning as changing participation: Discourse roles in ESL writing conferences. The Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 519-535. doi:10.1111/j.0026-7902.2004.t01-16-.x

Topic/audience/need for the study-This study is about how a Vietnamese ESL student learned a new discursive practice: revision talk during a writing conference.  Rather than make claims about observable gains in English proficiency, which is commonly done in ESL research, the authors drew on situated learning theory to explore how the student and his writing instructor changed their participation over time. 
Methods/data sources-Young and Miller videotaped and transcribed four weekly writing conferences. Their method is informed by "the twin traditions of conversation analysis and ethnography" (p. 520).
Language features attended to-The researchers decided to focus on the following "recurring tokens of revision talk": sequential organization of acts, boundaries for openings and closings, and role construction within the "participation framework" (p. 521). Other features mentioned: "candidate revisions," "turn management," and "a designedly incomplete utterance [DUI]"
Claims made as findings-The two participants changed their roles over time.  The student especially evolved from peripheral to fuller participation, per Lave and Wenger's theory of situated learning: "...[H]e showed he had mastered the interactional architecture of thepractice by performing all acts except those that uniquely construct the role of instructor" (p. 533).
So what question?-There is an implicit message here for instructors to re-orient themselves to the role of "co-learner." Instructors can scaffold self-directed learning by managing "a division of participation that allows for growth on the part of the student." The authors are trying to open up a dialog about "the situated perspective on learning" within the field of L2 acquisition" (p. 533).
Comments/reflections-The first several pages of this article helped me consolidate some of my thinking about CA and DA and all the terminology. As I noted in my opening reflections, I was confused about what exactly constituted a "language feature" versus "interactional resource" versus "a pattern" and so on. Just a little bogged down in jargon. Young and Miller write, "Participants co-construct a discursive practice through a configuration of interactional resources that is specific to the practice." So, now I am beginning to think of a "practice" as a recurring episode or pattern of talk made up of the nuts-and-bolts of language (grammar, syntax, tone/emotion, and all the other non-verbals).   The examples of discursive practices given by Young and Miller (lab meetings, Maya divination, a language proficiency interview) remind me of "genres" in the linguistic sense, such as Mercer described in Words and Minds.

Questions-On page 520, Young and Miller say that practices can be characterized by a "configuration" of six "discursive resources." I get all but the last one: "the ways in which participants construct meaning in a specific discursive practice, analyzed using the methods of systemic functional linguistics." Does this mean they are using a blended methodology of CA and DA, with "systemic linguistics" being a tradition of DA???

I am grateful for the prescribed response structure for this post -- I do not think I could pull off a coherent synthesis of the readings this week!!

Reading notes for Sept. 13

Update on data collection

My back-up data collection plan within the high school context hit a snag late last week. The assistant principal of the school notified me that I could not conduct my research project on the collaborative team meetings without first obtaining the permission of "downtown." This means contacting the head of research and evaluation for Knox County Schools and submitting a written research proposal. I don't perceive this as being given the run-around, just an unfortunate side effect of the highly centralized, top-down administration for which KCS is well known.

I submitted my research proposal just under the wire, as all requests are reviewed on the second Monday of each month.  How long it takes for a reply remains uncertain. Based on the wording of the KCS policy, I fear my request will be declined because of the potentially sensitive nature of the collaborative team meetings I wish to audio record.  I suspect the fact that I am assuming a learner's stance and that the project is for fulfillment of a course requirement, not publication, will not serve to mitigate KCS's strict interpretation of the policy.

Here are the first few lines from "Regulations and Procedures for Conducting Research Studies in Knox County Schools":

Knox County Schools desires to keep abreast of changes in educational technology, results of current educational research, and innovative educational programs. Therefore, we welcome the opportunity to be a part of the development and testing of innovative ideas and quality research in education. However, it is the obligation of Knox County Schools and the research committee to protect the interests and learning opportunities of its students, teachers, and stakeholders. These interests and opportunities will not be sacrificed in order to establish a setting conducive to research. Thus, each proposal to conduct research will be examined carefully on the basis of whether it contributes significant new and useful information to the educational program of Knox County Schools and public education as a whole. In general, permission to conduct research may be denied when the study is deemed: (1) to interfere with instructional time, particularly when student responses are required; (2) to be too socially or politically sensitive; (3) to have little or no educational research value; or (4) to be too great of a burden on Knox County Schools personnel.

Update on data collection

Data collection plans

Plan A

In collaboration with my classmate Renee, I have identified a research site and acquired the informed consent of all seven participants.  The site is a hybrid course in emergent literacy that meets face-to-face on Saturday mornings five times this semester. Renee is the instructor of record for the class; she is teaching for Dr. Anne McGill-Franzen, who is on sabbatical. As TA, I provide technical support to the instructor and students, mainly through BlackBoard.

The course, REED 529, is generally populated with practicing classroom teachers and recent college graduates seeking additional endorsement as K-12 reading specialists and/or MS degrees in reading education. Because the course is a hybrid, students must demonstrate competency with a variety of information and communication technologies in order to participate, interact, and represent what they have learned. Students write weekly blog reflections, build knowledge bases within wikis, and use the course management site to upload and submit written work and to communicate with the instructor. The final project is a written case study accompanied by an enhanced slide presentation for which the students must capture, edit, and embed video documenting their assessments of and instructional interventions with emergent readers.

Because the class was scheduled to meet twice in August and then not again until late September, we hit the ground running and began capturing audio on the first day, which was August 20.  We have since recorded more than five hours of audio, but I cannot say that any of it is particularly useful or relevant to my personal research agenda, which would be how teachers take up and talk about digital technologies. Over the last two Saturdays, I have listened to and participated in snippets of conversation about technology in the course, but so far there has not been a single, 30-minute segment of natural, uninterrupted conversation on the subject of technology.

It has always been the case in the past that I have offered technology help sessions to the 529 students, with them taking the initiative insofar as accessing that support. Over the next six weeks, students will be engaged in their first big project of digital content creation, the wiki. So, I am currently in a holding pattern as I wait to see how -- if at all -- they want to talk about, problem-solve, or troubleshoot this assignment between themselves or with me.

As far as collecting a document or text to analyze, I was thinking of two things: 1) the course syllabus, or 2) an actual digital artifact created by one of the students for the course. But, if I use a piece of student-generated content, I am wondering what additional permissions I might have to secure??

Plan B

I was recently invited to sit in on weekly collaborative team meetings at a local high school, and I am currently in the process of securing permission from the building-level principal to record these sessions. Then, of course, I would have to acquire the informed consent of the team, which numbers about eight teachers and administrators. The meetings occur every Thursday morning around 10:15 and last for at least 30 to 45 minutes. On the plus side, the frequency and duration suggests to me that this might me a good back-up plan, assuming the gatekeeper grants access. I’m also sure the team will generate a substantial trail of documentation, some of which I can add to my data mix.

On the minus side, I wonder if I will be a little handicapped, analytically speaking, because of my six-year absence from the public school context? I will discuss this issue of context in my reflection on Mercer, chapters 5-7.  

Data collection plans

More on Mendeley

from OpenClipArt.org

I've been tidying up my Mendeley library, checking on citation formats, organizing readings into folders, attaching my annotated PDFs, and experimenting with what happens to annotated Diigo web pages when added to the library.  (BTW: the Diigo/Mendeley part really works! I don't know why I am surprised by this, but I think this level of integration is cool!  For example, I accessed a recent column from The Chronicle of Higher Education, highlighted important points using Diigo, and then added the link to Mendeley.)

Other aspects of building the Mendeley library have not been so cool. I have tons of reading material related to my frameworks, previous coursework, and past lit reviews that I eventually want to add to Mendeley, but, for the time being, I decided to to focus on the material at hand: the several journal articles, research studies, and book chapters required for EP604, "Digital Tools for Qualitative Research."

Basically, I began by creating an EP604 folder inside Mendeley Desktop.  After I read and annotate an EP604 PDF using an iPad reader app, I "flatten" the annotated version and send it to my Dropbox, at which point I rename the PDF using a standard format of "author_year_annotated." From Dropbox, I can quickly add the PDF file to Mendeley Desktop.  (I will explain this process in more detail in a future post, including my final verdict on which iPad annotator I like the best.)

Once inside Mendeley Desktop, things aren't so efficient and seamless. I don't know if I am missing something, but I have found it necessary to manually add most of the information about each EP604 course document.  This takes as much time as if I was using any other citation management software, and my data input abilities are always error prone. Occasionally, the information for articles from online journals will automatically "pop up" in the reference fields, but more often than not, I must painstakingly enter the title in the right APA format, along with author, year, volume number, issue number, and so on.  

The automatic DOI search feature does work efficiently for filling in reference information for items with an available DOI.  But I can't for the life of me imagine why I would have the DOI number on hand, unless I locate the document myself on the Web, such as with Google Scholar or a library database. For the current task at hand, this represents a major duplication of effort, as all the course documents were supplied via the EP604 course management site.

Insofar as managing references, I obviously (and mistakenly) expected Mendeley to magically deliver me from the tedium of manual entry.  Clearly, I have to lower my expectations and take comfort in the fact that the time I invest now in maintaining my library will pay off later when I need to generate a list of works cited.

So, why use Mendeley at all?  Why not stick with Zotero, which I have used in the past, or try EndNote, which is supported by my university? Well, I am just deeply committed to this idea of controlling my own database both from within the cloud and locally on my computer, even if I have to pay a little extra for more server space. (I am currently using close to 15 percent of my free 500 MB after just two weeks.)  

More importantly, I am intrigued by the give-and-take between Internet as an act of research and Internet as source of research.  I am also curious about this persistent theme in EP604 that suggests digital technologies are supporting conventional research practices but also changing them.  I think Mendeley possibly exemplifies all of this.

The July 19 Mendeley webinar for educational researchers, for example, emphasized that Mendeley was more than a citation manager.  The presenter referred to it as  "a crowd-sourced, publicly searched catalog of research." The Mendeley web client functions as a "collaborative platform." As researchers search for, share, and retrieve data, Mendeley aggregates the "community's processes," supplying readership statistics and disciplinary trends back to its members.

Moreover, according to its developers, Mendeley is highly individualized to fit the "idiosyncratic processes of researchers."  It supposedly has seven different ways to add documents and is compatible with more than a 1000 citation styles!

As I listened, I wondered about Mendeley as a place for self-publishing and dissemination of research.  If the Mendeley community were to grow exponentially, becoming some sort of scholarly version of Facebook, would community members simply bypass the "old guard" of peer-reviewed research journals? Talk about changed practices!

I would love to continue to explore these big ideas, but for my EP604 skill-building project, I also need to attend to some practical concerns that have come up for me in recent days:  

• If there are indeed seven different ways to add docs to Mendeley, perhaps I need to keep practicing until I find the most efficient way?
• I am interested in the TPACK framework for technology and teacher education.  I want to find out if there is a Mendeley group for TPACK.  If not, should I start one?
• Would it be possible to integrate Mendeley with this blog in some way?  Is that advisable? Does Mendeley provide member badges? It's worth a look-see. . . .

More on Mendeley