Paper #5 Objects of Study

Examining the Objects of Study
Examining the Objects of Study

As mentioned in previous posts, my studies have focused on Basic Writing and transfer theory.  My affinity for transfer theory emanates from my desire to not just further research for the field, but to examine the ways some of our current pedagogies might have marginalized this group of students, unintentionally of course, and how we might improve our practices to avoid this and empower basic writers using familiar literacies and knowledge from other parts of their lives.  However, as I am writing this post, I am reminded of how complex such a study using transfer theory might be considering what might be of particular interest as an object of study, or better yet, objects of study (OoSes).

With transfer theory, at least two or more objects of study need attention in order to assess whether transfer is actually occurring.  One object needs to exist in the academic context since this is where I would want to see if literacies or knowledge transfers, and then the social context, most likely a social media platform, would be the other.  Some OoSes in the academic context commonly include student papers, emails, prewriting, or drafts while the objects of study in the social context would be “short-form digital writing” (Pigg, Grabill, Brunk-Chavez, Moore, Rosinski & Curran, 2014, p. 108) dealing with posts and messaging, construction of online profiles, or emoticons.  Student papers are common OoSes in Composition and Rhetoric research studies because they are primarily what students produce in the classroom and should reveal not only the way they think and communicate that understanding, but also how they do or do not showcase the skills they are learning and developing in class, and social media posts are a current “hot” topic because of their frequency and the way students navigate rhetorical situations in a public and social sphere.  Yet, this is still just a broad view of typical OoSes in the field, and the reason social media has become fairly common in current studies is because of its prevalence and consistent usage by basic writers and FYC students.  It is the form they communicate most in, which provides a possible wealth of information for researchers to sift through.

When examining these text-based OoSes, I might use a linguistic approach to observe how students construct identity socially through the reuse of particular words such as first person pronouns or culturally homogenous diction and then analyze their academic works to see if they construct identity similarly.  Is there a disconnect?  If so, what explains the disconnect in how they create identity?  Is it pedagogy or curriculum that causes this?  Another textual analysis approach could be student use of emoticons in conveying tone and voice in social media posts compared to how students can, or cannot, convey the same emotion in strictly text-based, academic writing. In both scenarios, text-based OoSes serve as the foci for the studies.

Transfer theory and these OoSes have roots in previous calls for improving student literacies and basic writing curriculum.  Bartholomae (1986) noted the struggle for basic writers does not necessarily lie in their skills as writers, but it is the unfamiliarity of the context of academics itself and the assignments we ask students to complete within that environment. Specifically, a curriculum that focuses on Standard Written English as the accepted communication marginalizes basic writers who lack comfort with it, but this does not mean they are incapable of coherent, organized, and effective communication altogether.  And this is why Bizzell (2000) felt that Social Media, a familiar area of communication for them, should be included in the classroom as traditional curriculum “too often ignores or suppresses the real linguistic resources that all students bring to school” (p. 6).  Other scholars documented the resources available in social media such as how instructors can help students examine user profiles and audience identification on Facebook by making them aware of the “filter bubble.”  Facebook algorithms restrict posts that appear on feeds to those that are more frequently liked and shared by a user, creating a particular, interested audience or community for that user, which can theoretically transfer to the academic setting in helping students become more aware of discourse communities and audiences (Head, 2016).  Yet, others suggested that social media can complicate, not solve, some of the issues of transfer.

Pozorski (2013) argued that using technology in the composition classroom actually “disempowers” the students (p. 190).  The difficulty is not in the technology alone, but in the contrast of cultures, “academic and youth/social,” (p.197) that the technology exists in.  Vie’s (2015) research echoed this sentiment—though she acknowledged the growing interest in social media as viable and warranted—as  her survey of faculty revealed concerns about crossing the professional and personal boundary when including social media in the academic curriculum.  Looking at transfer of skills between the two contexts is important, but what cannot be overlooked is the risk of students not understanding that though skills transfer, boundaries with expected behaviors are still present between those contexts.

The abundance of Social Media is clear, but the boundaries often blur when trying to connect to the academic context.
The abundance of Social Media is clear, but the boundaries often blur when trying to connect to the academic context.

While social media continues to be an increasingly common topic and an OoS in research, it fits in the context of the history of basic writing.  Since Shaugnessy’s coining of “basic writer” and the open admissions at colleges and universities during the 1970s has fostered a focus on marginalized students and their ability to “navigate” (Bartholomae, 1986) the academic setting.  Examining how to tap into their preexisting skills to foster growth in academia directly ties into the current situation where social media is the most common form of communication in the social setting and the subsequent popularity of transfer theory.

Such research studies will not be simple or easy as evidenced by the concerns of scholars regarding social media in the academic context and the complexities of social media itself (its multimodal composition, multiple OoSes within it, changing platforms, and popularity shelf-life among students).  Questions that arise might be what specific part of social media should become the OoS of my study?  How can this research remain relevant if the social media platform will most likely disappear or change drastically in a short of time span, possibly before the research is complete?  However, the importance of establishing the connection between academic and social contexts and the possibility of empowering basic writers through this is too valuable to overlook.

 

References

Bartholomae, D. (1986). Inventing The University. Journal of Basic Writing, 5(1), 4-23. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/43443456

Bizzell, P. (2000). Basic Writing and the Issue of Correctness, or, What to Do with “Mixed” Forms of Academic Discourse. Journal of Basic Writing, 19(1), 4-12. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/43739259

Head, S. L. (2016). Teaching grounded audiences: Burke’s identification in facebook and composition. Computers and Composition: An International Journal for Teachers of Writing, 39, 27-40. doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2015.11.006

Pigg, S., Grabill, J. T., Brunk-Chavez, B., Moore, J. L., Rosinski, P., & Curran, P. G. (2014). Ubiquitous writing, technologies, and the social practice of literacies of coordination. Written Communication, 31(1), 91-117.  doi: 10.1177/0741088313514023

Pozorski, A. (2013). Podcast paralysis: Inventing the university in the twenty-first century. Writing & Pedagogy, 5(2), 189.  doi: 10.1558/wap.v5i2.189

Vie, S. (2015). What’s Going on?: Challenges and Opportunities for Social Media Use in the Writing Classroom. The Journal of Faculty Development, 29(2), 33-44. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.liberty.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/docview/1776597451?accountid=12085

ENGL 810 Paper #3 Epistemological Alignment

Aligning with a certain position, essentially choosing sides, is not difficult to do:  I root for the Boston Red Sox (i.e. my side).    Yet, when considering the implications of identifying my epistemological alignment, I am hesitant, though paralyzed would probably be a better word.  It is not as easy as merely choosing a side, picking a team to root for, or buying memorabilia and becoming a part of the crowd watching the game.  In academia, such a choice does not create a passive existence in the stands, merely there to watch the spectacle that is scholarship; this choice is my identification with a particular view with specific people and identified values, and it is a marker of not only who I am as a person, but also who I am as a pedagogue and a scholar.  So essentially, this paper is about identifying an essential part of who I am.

With this question of identity in mind, I thought about the studies I am most drawn to, and the principles that those studies emanate from, which was social constructivism, recognizing how we create knowledge socially.  To be clear, I do believe in absolute knowledge though some social constructivists would cringe at the term, but I perceive this as only partially revealed at times, obstructed by the complexities of political,

Constructivism- making meaning through interaction with other entities
Constructivism- making meaning through interaction with other entities

social, and cultural factors.  The knowledge that is socially constructed, one that changes as the external factors change and what constructivists consider “new knowledge” is a different view or understanding of the absolute knowledge we thirst for.  Essentially, it is not necessarily “new,” but it is new to us.  It exists beyond our measure or complete understanding at any one point in time; however, the parts revealed through scholarship are accessible and allow us to piece together the absolute knowledge we seek.

Social constructivism allows for a thorough analytical approach to the complex situations created in classes.  Joe Kincheloe (2006) criticized the reductionist approaches that exist in the K-12 setting, which uses standardized testing models that limit knowledge to a package moving from theorists to educators to students; he argued for more reciprocity between educators and researchers in an effort to recognize the political, social, and cultural factors at play in the classroom.  Leigh Jonaitis (2012) discussed the importance of recognizing Computer Mediated Technologies in the classroom through a transactional view, essentially seeing the interconnectivity of Basic Writers and CMT:  “Consideration of technology in the basic writing classroom, then, is not a luxury, but instead a crucial part of considering the constantly evolving literacy practices that are such a large part of basic writers’ lives” (p.51).  Both Kincheloe (2006) and Jonaitis (2012) suggested that approaching any of these components as though they are autonomous would be counterproductive to pedagogical practices and understanding what is actually occurring in the classroom; thus, their constructivist approaches are informing their views of pedagogy.

 

Limiting any component—human, technological, geographical—in this equation without recognizing the complexities would hinder the “educational growth” Dewey (1916) defined in his literature. Also, without recognizing the political implications of our own institutional practices and structures such as classifying Basic Writers, we create scenarios where students struggle to navigate the university, an unfamiliar terrain and discourse for them (Bartholomae, 1986; Hindman, 1993; Pozorski, 2013).  The university, the faculty member, the students, and the technology all merge in a classroom setting, creating a situation where scholars must recognize not only the complexity this produces, but how those individual factors influence each other.

David Bartholomae-author of "Inventing the University"
David Bartholomae-author of “Inventing the University”

My earlier post (Paper #2) highlights the question of transfer in the university setting, especially with Basic Writers, which leads me to possible Objects of Study being student writing and technology (i.e. social media).  I have considered examining student communication on Twitter and how they navigate the rhetorical situations existing there and if this same practice occurs in the classroom, an academic setting.  Are students constructing knowledge in the classroom as different from the knowledge on Twitter? Why or why not?  What factors—social, cultural, political—creates the rift between their writing in two settings and how could literacies from one successfully transfer to the other.  Pozorski (2013) suggested that the incorporation of common and familiar technologies for students into the classroom would create more confusion and resistance because the academic setting influenced student perception of podcasts.  While this is one particular study, I think more research is necessary.

In establishing an epistemological alignment, I am establishing a key foundation for future scholarship and pedagogical theories.  To be blunt, this choice is incredibly important; however, it is not limiting. Richard Fulkerson (1990) stated, “Axiological commitments set up goals for pedagogy, but do not prescribe how best to reach them, and one’s decision about how to reach the goal will be guided but not determined by views of writing as a process, just as both procedural and pedagogical theories will be based on whatever research or experience one’s epistemology allows to constitute knowledge” (p.418).   Fulkerson’s statement reveals just how epistemology serves as a core component of my profession and future studies, informing my practices as a teacher and later leading to the results I value as a result of my practices.  I feel that a social constructivist approach is best when approaching the objects of study previously mentioned.  It creates a focused view on the individual components while also recognizing the complexities resulting from their interaction.  And while I may share this view with others, my pedagogical philosophies and axiological considerations will still create disparities, those which are common in the discourse of the field in the pursuit of knowledge.

References

Bartholomae, D. (1986). INVENTING THE UNIVERSITY. Journal of Basic Writing, 5(1), 4-23. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/43443456

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: Macmillan.

Fulkerson, R. (1990). Composition Theory in the Eighties: Axiological Consensus and Paradigmatic Diversity. College Composition and Communication, 41(4), 409-429. doi:1. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/357931

Hindman, J. (1993). REINVENTING THE UNIVERSITY: FINDING THE PLACE FOR BASIC WRITERS. Journal of Basic Writing, 12(2), 55-76. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/43443613

Jonaitis, L. (2012). Troubling Discourse: Basic Writing and Computer-Mediated Technologies. Journal of Basic Writing, 31(1), 36-58. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/43741085

Kincheloe, J. (2011). A Critical Complex Epistemology of Practice. Counterpoints, 352, 219-230. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/42980820

Pozorski, A. (2013). Podcast paralysis: Inventing the university in the twenty-first century. Writing & Pedagogy, 5(2), 189.