We spent the first part of class with introductions and talking in a general way about what kinds of writing studies projects might relate to your interests and fields of study. We have a great mix of education and writing studies majors - and from the ideas you put out there for what you'd like to study I think there will be ways for each of you to do research projects on topics you are genuinely interested in.
Syllabus & Calendar. We didn't spend a lot of time on the Syllabus. Make sure to read through the course policies and we will start class with questions if there are points you are unsure about. I drew your attention to the points for grading, and pointed out that my cut offs for grades are 90/80/70 with above 90 = A, 90 = A-. and 89 = B+ and etc.
As part of this discussion (and as in the last blog post), I pointed out that the calendar gives the overview for where the course is going, but that to keep up to date with what we are actually doing in class - you need to check this blog after every class for a review of what we did, and an update of what we will be doing.
Attendance: I also pointed out that I take attendance with the sign-in book. It is your responsibility to sign in. At 4:30 I draw a line under the last signature and if you sign in after you are tardy (see attendance/tardy policies in syllabus). I realize that you have complicated lives and that sometimes you will be late; if any of you have commitments/responsibilities that are going to make it difficult to get to class - talk to me so that I can take your circumstances into consideration.
Analysis: Slowing it down + naming what we do as we think.
During the second pat of class we worked on analysis. We started out by making a list of some of the words you used to describe what you do when you do analysis. These are all good general descriptions for analysis. Our work this evening was to pay close attention to our thinking processes so we could name the different steps we took as we engaged in analytic process.
You worked in groups to solve a particular "brain teaser." I asked you to pay attention to, and to name the different moves you made as you tried to solve the puzzle = and you did. After each group had worked their way through to an answer (awesome) we made a list of the moves you wrote down as you worked. We then grouped the moves into categories, and the list below is a summary of what you noticed yourselves doing.
Analytic process for solving the puzzle.
1. DEFINE the problem/question you are solving (identify the problem/question)
This step included ORIENTING to the data (deciding the perspective or focus for your analysis). In this case - looking at the picture with the question right side up, and reading right to left, and down the page, was the easiest orientation.
Idenfity and name what counts as DATA (information relevant to your problem/question) = in this problem relevant data were features of the shapes, as well as information about their sequence. This is part of the next step.
2. Name = noticing the FEATURES in your data that are significant to your problem
You notice that there were different shapes
That some of the shapes were oriented differently
That the shapes were different colors
Before you could talk in your group about patterns or how the problem worked you needed to NAME the features of your data
3. CATEGORIZE= put data with similar FEATURES into groups
Categories
= groups of things with shared features
This was a beginning step for looking for a patterns
It sometimes included counting the members of a category (how many of each kind of shape/color/orientation) and it sometimes included noticing local groups or clusters (like the groups of two symbols of the same kind)
Looking at a local group (just part of the problem) is called BRACKETING = like putting [around part of the problem] so you can concentrate on a smaller, more manageable piece of data
4. Look for patterns
In this step you used the names and groups as ways to talk about repetitions or cycles
You identified lots of different local patterns = which shapes ALWAYS went together, or the order in which shapes followed one another.
To develop different patterns - your looked at the puzzle from different ORIENTATIONS, and you also BRACKETED off sections so you could just look at part of the puzzle at a time
5. Pose local theories
Once you noticed a pattern in color, or sequence, or grouping - you formed an idea of what that pattern might look like if it were true for the whole puzzle. The idea of what a pattern would look like when it applies to ALL your data is a theory.
Theories often are connected to patterns that you already know. For example, because the shapes were similar to shapes from playing cards, many of you HYPOTHESIZED (posed a theory) that this puzzle might have something to do with a card game, or the organization of the playing cards (good guess!)
Others noticed that there was a black shape in every row but the last one, and guessed the club (which is the right answer) => but the wrong reason. There is also a diamond in every row but the last one => the REAL answer is about the sequence of the shapes (a BIG theory).
6. Test your theories!
Once you had a local theory (about two shapes always following each other, or being above each other, or about the color distribution) you tested your theory by checking to see if the pattern you identified applied to the WHOLE puzzle.
If the theory didn't FIT (explain what you could see) and WORK (allow you to generate or extend the data further by predicting the pattern) - you decided the theory was wrong - and cycled back through the steps - re-thinking the names and groupings and patterns that you had already tried. You might even need to go back and re-define the problem.
7. Use local theory to pose BIG theory (to explain the whole system)
Once you found a theory that seemed to fit and work for part of the puzzle - the next step is to see if you can use your theory to predict what would happen in new situations. For this puzzle - the correct answer allows you to name the right "shape" at any point in the series.
Reflections on our work together: In addition to observing these steps (and writing them down -good work!), we noticed that this process was not linear. As we pointed out at the beginning of the exercise - thinking is messy, it doesn't go in a straight line. You cycled through these processes, sometimes jumping from one to another. For example, you might have posed a local theory, found that it didn't "work" and then gone back to identifying features to figure out why the theory didn't work. This new consideration of features then might lead you to different categories. And so on.
As explained in class, the purpose of doing this exercise was for us to analyze(!) analytic process =>
- to identify and name the "features" of analytic process,
- to put those features into categories,
- and to pose a theory about relationships among those categories that can "explain" how analysis works.
And that's what we did.
WHY SLOWING DOWN AND NAMING ANALYTIC PROCESS IS IMPORTANT.
1. Researchers need names and categories to communicate about analysis so that they can share their thinking/analyses to others. This is important both in talking and in writing. This exercise drew your attention to some of the names researchers use as they talk about analysis (DATA, NAMING, FEATURES, CATEGORIZING, LOCAL THEORY, FIT & WORK, etc).
2. Awareness of research process allows us to "prove" our answers. Without conscious awareness of how to do analysis, we tend to fall back on "intuitive" patterns for thinking. These ways of thinking are generally "quick & dirty" = meaning they give you a rapid insight with a usable answer. This thinking takes place rapidly - and you often don't know how you got your answer - so you won't be able to "prove" it.
3. Complex research problems/questions can feel overwhelming if you do not consciously "know the moves" to work through analysis. Because our analytic process is mostly "automatic" - when we are faced with a problem we aren't familiar with, or a question that has many, many different ways to think about answers - our automatic approaches don't have something familiar (from our experience) to latch onto.
We spent some time at the very end of class applying the analytic process to a question about communication dynamics in class. By naming what we remembered as happening in class (Naming) and observing patterns (noticing what happens when teachers and students talk in certain ways) - we were on our way to pose theories about how teachers might improve (or at least do something different) talk in the classroom.
For next class:
Work on the NIH training - send an image of your certificate to the course email on or before Sept 17.
Read: Data Set 1: Shaggy Dog Stories + Swales (links to these texts are on the right of this blog)
Read: Data Set 1: Shaggy Dog Stories + Swales (links to these texts are on the right of this blog)
Blog 1: Do some writing about what kind of writing studies research you are interested in working on.
If you have questions - send me an email!
No comments:
Post a Comment