Comp Studies Research & Methods 2016-03-14 19:09:00

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 Effectivenessby 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.




Comp Studies Research & Methods 2016-03-14 19:09:00

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 Effectivenessby 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.




Farris and Anson’s Chapter 9 and Pritchard & Honeycutt

     I'm going to assume others had problems with Hypothesis this week. At first, I thought my school's wifi was prohibiting me from posting comments, but then it didn't work from home either. A few comments snuck through for Neff, and then I could make comments for Pritchard and Honeycutt, but I couldn't highlight the selection. I tried to submit comments multiple times, so they either never went through, or they were submitted many times and I look foolish.

     Like Martha, I had a lot of trouble with Neff's chapter. Perhaps spring break has turned my brain into a lump, but I couldn't get into it. Grounded Theory, as I understand it, is conducting a bunch of research, indexing it, and looking for patterns to write about.

     This seems like a great way to arrive at something since you write about whatever information you uncover. I hesitate to use the word conclude since the chapter states that this method is ongoing and leads to more research. In a sense, the researcher is crowdsourcing. If there is something of interest to the reader and he/she wishes to pursue it further, he/she can now contribute.

     I enjoyed Pritchard and Honeycutt's look at the process approach. Much like Debbie, it reminded me of how I learned to write in school. It also provided data (finally) the showed how effective a specific writing strategy can be for students.

     I always think of my students when we read an article and see new techniques. It's now the third marking period and I've used the phrase "the training wheels have come off" more times than I would have liked. My students rely heavily on teacher direction and can't move on to the next paragraph without asking me to check the first.

     What drives me nuts is that I have gone through a systematic approach to what they should be doing. In early assignments, I've detailed what should go in each sentence and still had issues. It seems as though the confidence in their abilities is missing. The only thing I can deduce from this is that writing wasn't being done before they came to me. As ridiculous as this sounds, word around the district is that such is the case.

     Because of this, my students have a hard time seeing writing as a process. All attempts at pre-writing and revision have failed because of this. I've had to make the rough draft of an essay a quiz grade that must be present in order for the final draft to count as a test grade. This is artificial because it forces the student to write a rough draft, but it's done grudgingly and the student doesn't benefit from any academic growth.
How I feel right now.
     My school is in the process of adopting textbooks. Believe it or not, the last time they purchased new textbooks was 2007. The last year anything from one of the textbooks was actually in the curriculum was 2010. Needless to say, I'm excited. The new book is completely interactive. The students not only get a physical book, but a digital version as well. Each digital version comes with interactive lessons, and lo and behold, one of them is entitled "Writing as a Process".
I think I'm going to like this book.

Farris and Anson’s Chapter 9 and Pritchard & Honeycutt

     I'm going to assume others had problems with Hypothesis this week. At first, I thought my school's wifi was prohibiting me from posting comments, but then it didn't work from home either. A few comments snuck through for Neff, and then I could make comments for Pritchard and Honeycutt, but I couldn't highlight the selection. I tried to submit comments multiple times, so they either never went through, or they were submitted many times and I look foolish.

     Like Martha, I had a lot of trouble with Neff's chapter. Perhaps spring break has turned my brain into a lump, but I couldn't get into it. Grounded Theory, as I understand it, is conducting a bunch of research, indexing it, and looking for patterns to write about.

     This seems like a great way to arrive at something since you write about whatever information you uncover. I hesitate to use the word conclude since the chapter states that this method is ongoing and leads to more research. In a sense, the researcher is crowdsourcing. If there is something of interest to the reader and he/she wishes to pursue it further, he/she can now contribute.

     I enjoyed Pritchard and Honeycutt's look at the process approach. Much like Debbie, it reminded me of how I learned to write in school. It also provided data (finally) the showed how effective a specific writing strategy can be for students.

     I always think of my students when we read an article and see new techniques. It's now the third marking period and I've used the phrase "the training wheels have come off" more times than I would have liked. My students rely heavily on teacher direction and can't move on to the next paragraph without asking me to check the first.

     What drives me nuts is that I have gone through a systematic approach to what they should be doing. In early assignments, I've detailed what should go in each sentence and still had issues. It seems as though the confidence in their abilities is missing. The only thing I can deduce from this is that writing wasn't being done before they came to me. As ridiculous as this sounds, word around the district is that such is the case.

     Because of this, my students have a hard time seeing writing as a process. All attempts at pre-writing and revision have failed because of this. I've had to make the rough draft of an essay a quiz grade that must be present in order for the final draft to count as a test grade. This is artificial because it forces the student to write a rough draft, but it's done grudgingly and the student doesn't benefit from any academic growth.
How I feel right now.
     My school is in the process of adopting textbooks. Believe it or not, the last time they purchased new textbooks was 2007. The last year anything from one of the textbooks was actually in the curriculum was 2010. Needless to say, I'm excited. The new book is completely interactive. The students not only get a physical book, but a digital version as well. Each digital version comes with interactive lessons, and lo and behold, one of them is entitled "Writing as a Process".
I think I'm going to like this book.

The Process Approach to Writing Instruction by Ruie J. Pritchard and Ronald L. Honeycutt & Grounded Theory; A Critical Research Methodology by Joyce Magnotto Neff


I enjoyed this piece on the process approach to writing as well as the information on the NWP and all they have accomplished. The discussions of early practices reminded me of my high school English days; we had no examples to imitate like the five-paragraph model of today. And as far as editing was concerned, proofreading and revision were usually lumped together and saved for last. I don’t remember much free-writing but journals were popular and prompted a similar outcome. Pre-writing, writing, and re-writing were expected for a successful paper. These practices still work for me but are much more involved than the simplistic model suggests. The strides made by the NWP through all the studies and strategies is absolutely mind-boggling!
As a student in the 1970’s, I did not know there were new approaches to writing being tried out in my classes. I never dreamed that teachers were learning from us and from one another. And as a returning student today, I am delighted with the documentation of practices we merely dabbled in back then, completely unaware of the bigger picture that was at play. My fascination with reflection as a tool results from my use of it then, as a suggestion for our writing, to now when its relevance is accepted and respected.
The other observation I made as a student then was that revising my paper meant rearranging my thoughts and sometimes my words to convey the intended meaning. One positive side to the freedom of discovery we as students were given (back in the 1970’s), as well as the lack of teacher intervention, was it afforded us the opportunity to experiment with the different suggestions and define our own writing style. But, I knew then and even moreso now, that not everyone can do that without teacher guidance. The ability to simplify the whole process for all students is a huge asset and the earlier age these instructional tools are being introduced really spells success for students to feel able to write without fear of or hatred for the process.

Looking at “Grounded Theory” in chapter 9, Neff does a great job of convincing me of this methodology’s validity. After our discussion in class, this method entails lots of work and can take months or even years to complete the research and data gathering. In fact, it is never really finished as one always questions as you gather your data through the process and beyond. What I liked was the idea of working in collaboration, and starting with assumptions, data collection and analyzation. This requires a detailed process and sounds intriguing while offering the chance to learn from the people on your team. Most important, it can offer solid evidence, researched in depth by a team of qualified people in collaboration. This sounds like a better approach than many we have heard so far; naturalistic research seems inferior as there is little to document in comparison to grounded theory. The discussion on methodologies as social practices was both enlightening and disturbing. Neff states they still remain: “traditional, patriarchal and exclusionary” (133). Hopefully that is changing as this field becomes more accepting of all work, and judges the writing instead of the writer.

The Process Approach to Writing Instruction by Ruie J. Pritchard and Ronald L. Honeycutt & Grounded Theory; A Critical Research Methodology by Joyce Magnotto Neff


I enjoyed this piece on the process approach to writing as well as the information on the NWP and all they have accomplished. The discussions of early practices reminded me of my high school English days; we had no examples to imitate like the five-paragraph model of today. And as far as editing was concerned, proofreading and revision were usually lumped together and saved for last. I don’t remember much free-writing but journals were popular and prompted a similar outcome. Pre-writing, writing, and re-writing were expected for a successful paper. These practices still work for me but are much more involved than the simplistic model suggests. The strides made by the NWP through all the studies and strategies is absolutely mind-boggling!
As a student in the 1970’s, I did not know there were new approaches to writing being tried out in my classes. I never dreamed that teachers were learning from us and from one another. And as a returning student today, I am delighted with the documentation of practices we merely dabbled in back then, completely unaware of the bigger picture that was at play. My fascination with reflection as a tool results from my use of it then, as a suggestion for our writing, to now when its relevance is accepted and respected.
The other observation I made as a student then was that revising my paper meant rearranging my thoughts and sometimes my words to convey the intended meaning. One positive side to the freedom of discovery we as students were given (back in the 1970’s), as well as the lack of teacher intervention, was it afforded us the opportunity to experiment with the different suggestions and define our own writing style. But, I knew then and even moreso now, that not everyone can do that without teacher guidance. The ability to simplify the whole process for all students is a huge asset and the earlier age these instructional tools are being introduced really spells success for students to feel able to write without fear of or hatred for the process.

Looking at “Grounded Theory” in chapter 9, Neff does a great job of convincing me of this methodology’s validity. After our discussion in class, this method entails lots of work and can take months or even years to complete the research and data gathering. In fact, it is never really finished as one always questions as you gather your data through the process and beyond. What I liked was the idea of working in collaboration, and starting with assumptions, data collection and analyzation. This requires a detailed process and sounds intriguing while offering the chance to learn from the people on your team. Most important, it can offer solid evidence, researched in depth by a team of qualified people in collaboration. This sounds like a better approach than many we have heard so far; naturalistic research seems inferior as there is little to document in comparison to grounded theory. The discussion on methodologies as social practices was both enlightening and disturbing. Neff states they still remain: “traditional, patriarchal and exclusionary” (133). Hopefully that is changing as this field becomes more accepting of all work, and judges the writing instead of the writer.