Here is a picture of my certificate! 

https://phrp.nihtraining.com/users/cert.php?c=2057100 

In chapter four Social Languages, Conversations, and Intertextuality in An Introduction to Discourse Analysis Theory and Method by James Paul Gee I really liked Section Two Social Languages. Not only did that part remind me of a classroom discussion in New Media Studies, but it also made me realize how easy it is to not notice changes in your own personality. Sometimes, I think people do not want to admit they change and other times not realizing the change makes sense. The changes can be so subtle. If I performed the experiment described, I think my changes would not be that noticeable.  But, I do think my word choice would change slightly. Unlike Jane, I would be less proper with my parents. The only explanation I can come up with is the fact I am more comfortable with my parents. I am comfortable because I know my parents would not judge me, if my grammar is not correct, or think less of me.

In addition I also thought it was interesting the chapter said, “we tend to think of writing, at least academic writing, as clear, unambiguous, and explicit in comparison to speech, . . . .” (Gee 51). I have experienced the complete opposite. Like I mentioned in class, teachers have understood my speech more at times, and teachers have made me realize it depends on who is writing and the purpose of their writing. Some people write to be understood while others write to sound and appear intelligent. But the same can be said with speech, like Dr. Zamora clearly told us one day in class. So, once again it all depends on the person.

Moreover, all the different ways Gee tried to interpret a sentence makes me think about why I love hearing people’s opinions. I love hearing different interpretations and statements that make me think. I see in my poetry class alone just how amazing our minds are and how we can take a simple image or word and transform it into something amazing or unique.

In Developing a Definition of Teacher Research, I liked the quote used in the beginning by Marion MacLean. MacLean says, “Teacher researchers have faith in their students; they know too much to give up on them” (23). This statement automatically made me think of all the wonderful teachers that saw potential within me, and did not “give up” on me even when I sometimes wanted to “give up” on myself (23). Those are the teachers that make a difference and leave an impact.

In addition, I liked how The Teacher as Researcher by Marian M. Mohr started off as well. Right from the jump, it brought me back to a classroom discussion and it showed the benefits of keeping a journal. I liked the idea of a journal possibly being used as a tool for yourself and strangers if the author considers it to be research and publishes it.

Continuing, the article actually relieved some of my fears about becoming a teacher. Mohr says, “The humiliation of not knowing everything catches up with every teacher” (5). This further highlights the saying “we all make mistakes,” and the fact we can never know everything. In Mohr case, the mistake actually did more good than harm. Mohr found a way to make the students recall a word and taught through the mistake. As teachers, you have to sometimes teach creatively to help your students learn and be engaged. Although I am not a teacher, I am sure there are days when nothing goes as planned, and you engage in something out of the usual.

In conclusion, Developing a Definition of Teacher Research and The Teacher as Researcher were more interesting to me than A Teacher-Research Group in Action although I do like the idea of trying to demonstrate a “group in action” (2). I also like the fact the article incorporated different people’s perspectives of the experience and it incorporated techniques that I personally enjoy. The reading also made me think of The Future of Composition Research because it mentioned “the process [being] more important than the product” (5).Although I still focus on the product, what you learn and who you become are important. 

Out of the choices we had to read for today, I liked Yancey’s piece the best. To begin, in Yancey’s Theory, Practice, and the Bridge between the Methods Course and Reflective Rhetoric I liked the idea she had of “tasks that resemble ‘real’ teaching . . . that to complete them one acts as (in the process of becoming) a teacher” (235). What came to my mind after reading that is students having to teach themselves a lesson then complete the homework assigned. I did this for a grammar class I was unable to attend, due to a storm that left me stuck in another state, and I was really surprised that I understood and did well on the homework. In a way, it can also be compared to the discussion lead/the written portion Dr. Zamora has us do. In addition, like Yancey mentioned this also made me think of collaboration. For example, one student may understand a lesson and explains it to another student. Furthermore while reading Yancey’s article, I felt like some of the information or suggestions she presented my teachers already do, and I also recalled other readings from last semester. I appreciated the fact she also liked the idea of students taking peers work home like Jaxon.

Continuing in Historical Review: Issues in Rhetorical Invention in Janice Lauer’s Invention in Rhetoric and Composition, I agree with a statement Carter makes. “Carter maintained that later, especially in the Roman period, the development of status, identifying the point at issue, offered a way for the rhetor to gain some control over the moment” (14). I think this statement can be applied to now, and it automatically took me back to my debate class. In order to have a strong argument, everything you said should have been supported by experts. If it did, not only did you but the audience felt like your argument was more valid. In my class, our opinion alone was not good enough because we did not have status or expertise. Sometimes, expertise leads to status. Although I think Historical Review was difficult to read, I think some of the people mentioned had really interesting things to say.

The first reading Grounded Theory a Critical Research Methodology by Joyce Magnotto Neff was okay. What I did like about it is the fact it bought up the idea of integration again and it also made me think about Predictor Variables the Future of Composition Research right from the beginning. The statement “What we have not done as prolifically or as well is to account for the methods we use to generate our predictions and reach our conclusions” made me think about the word process (Neff 124). Johanek talks about process in Predictor Variables. Furthermore, I also liked the idea of “conferring with others about the ‘fit’ of my emerging findings” (Neff 130). Sometimes, we learn more from collaboration, and a researcher will feel more confident about his/her results. Lastly, the most important point I think this article highlighted and what I am beginning to realize is you “must learn to live without closure” (Neff 126). Dr. Zamora mentioned this in one of our classroom discussions when she said things are not black and white, and I just shared a statement recently on Facebook that is very similar.

The next article The Process Approach to Writing Instruction Examining Its Effectiveness by Ruie J. Pritchard and Ronald L. Honeycutt was just another discussion we had in class. Based off of our discussion, I think a lot of us will agree with Brozick

the writing process is much more dynamic and is contingent upon numerous variables and influences such as purpose, audience, type of writing, and the writer’s personality type. (qtd. in Pritchard and Honeycutt 277)

I can mention several experiences in which this statement has proven itself to be true. In addition, I also liked Peter Elbow’s contribution because it took me back to my senior year of college and reminded me of a comment a teacher made to me.

Quanesha Burr

            While reading Chapter 7 Predictor Variables the Future of Composition Research in Cindy Johanek’s Composing Research: A Contextualist Paradigm for Rhetoric and Composition  the first main thing I noticed is Cindy Johanek makes a distinction between literature and writing. This distinction automatically took me back to a classroom discussion. Many of us can agree that the two are very contrary to one another and it took me entering graduate school to realize that. Johanek says, “MLA treats text as a ‘living’ object of study, always in front of us, always available to us” (190). This statement and the explanations that followed were easy for me to comprehend but it became difficult when Johanek started talking about writing. The only thing that really stuck out to me was the word process. She basically says writing is more about process not the end result (Johanek 191). I honestly do not know if I agree. Maybe it just depends on the situation.

            Furthermore, I understand why teachers want us to use recent publications in our work. I think it is to combat one of the main arguments Johanek makes which is

To write about composition publications in the present tense creates the illusion that our authors, regardless of the amount of time that has passed, still believe their theories of twenty years before. (191)

If we use recent publications, there is a greater chance the author continues to support what he/she said which makes Johanek argument less important.

In addition, Johanek makes the assertion that with “APA” the person who writes the research paper voice “isn’t as” engulfed by outside sources or voices (194). I believe one reason for citations is to differentiate between research and author’s opinion. What Johanek says, is not a reason to disregard “MLA” (190). Easier is not always better.

In the same section though, I partially agree that

the two groups in composition most likely to be storytellers (and be readily accepted as such) are those who have achieved status (‘big names’) and those who couldn’t care less about status yet (undergraduate peer tutors). (Johanek 196)

 I see truth in this statement but at the same time I am in graduate school and some of the assignments we engage in gave me the opportunity to just share my story, and the story of people close to me. The story does not necessarily have to go into full detail. I think it honestly just depends on the major, the professor and what they value, and what the assignment is asking for.

To wrap my discussion up, the last two sections really touched upon what we discussed last class during Jessica’s presentation. Johanek says “numerous scholars have pointed to the lack of training in research and statistics by composition graduate programs designed to produce ‘humanists’ ” (199). I feel honored to be learning something that others may not necessarily be learning but like my class discussed it goes way beyond the graduate level. Writing in High School/Writing in College: Research Trends and Future Directions by Joanne Addison and Sharon James McGee briefly touched upon the point my class made. The authors’ state,

further investigation of the data shows that of the five scales developed by NSSE there is significant adherence to, at best, only three (prewriting, clear expectations, and assigning higher-order writing) across the curriculum, and even these are subject to speculation. (Addison and McGee 156)

That statement basically proves some of the points Johanek and my class made. Moreover, these articles show teachers and students both have responsibilities to grow, adapt, and become more creative.

 

Questions

1. What do you think was Johanek’s strongest argument? Did she blame “MLA” for doing anything she in fact did herself? (190)
2. What did the two articles make you want to incorporate more within your classroom?
3. Who or what do you think presented the most valuable research?
    

           

In Cindy Johanek’s Composing Research: A Contextualist Paradigm for Rhetoric and Composition I was interested in the article Numbers, Narratives, and He vs. She Issues of Audience in Composition Research. When I was reading the article, I just kept thinking comfort. I felt as though I could relate to this article in a way because I do not feel math is my area of strength, and I know my “lack of confidence in math or statistics naturally leads to avoidance” (qtd. in Johanek 67). But, it might be shocking that I also agree with a lot of the arguments supporting math. Although reading and doing math might not necessarily be what you like, that still does not eliminate the fact it is important.

The solution seemed quite simple to me and it brings me back to several classroom discussions. One in which Dr. Zamora said the only way to get better is to read it more. Another in which Dr. Zamora and several students emphasized a great paper incorporates both your own personal input and research. I think both of the comments mentioned are important to recall, and I also think it is important to question whether our schools and researchers have done a great job teaching and reinforcing both personal input and outside research.

In addition, I also think it is important to bring up this idea that schools teach us to have a variety of sources and techniques, and I like the fact Johanek mentions using “all available tools to make necessary changes” (70). Following the school and Johanek’s advice, is a way to conquer bias which is an issue brought up in the article. But in some cases, I thought it was a good idea not to include all the research because of the way the researcher chose to get the results. In other circumstances as Johanek displayed, it hindered the author more than it helped. In conclusion, I liked the fact Johanek tried every way possible to make others position and her own understandable.