From syllabus: "What are the assumptions in one of the Pianko articles? What are the methods, and how are they highlighted? What difference, if any, does genre make?"
The CCC Pianko article was an interesting read for me. Pianko is rather straightforward about her goal: investigating and characterizing the writing patterns of “traditional” and “remedial” college freshmen. Her method is certainly empirical (her use of .05 significance tips this off). In terms of genre, she includes a description of the significance of/need for her research project, her methods, her findings, and then what she considers the implications of her work (unlike the primarily historical references and timeline approach which our past historical readings have utilized). However, the assumptions she makes throughout the study are problematic and, in my opinion, rather unsubstantiated.
(There is my 100 words, but I want to throw out a question/observation to you all, sorry I have to…)
Reading this piece directly after MacNealy became a problem for me. I not sure if it’s just the date of publication—if the standard for empirical research has changed that greatly over 25 years—but her claims seemed rather unsubstantiated to me. She mentions that the “high ranked writing pieces showed blah blah…”, but she never explains how what type of evaluation system she was using for this ranking. She mentions that she asked the students questions about their processes, but we receive no appendix with those questions to see the information she is drawing these conclusions from. On page 3 she throws out a “speculation” that traditional writer do more non-school writing and see more family/peer writing than remedial students, yet she presents no research or citation to support that speculation (which leads me to note the complete lack of citations altogether). In the end, she asserts that reflection alone is the difference between remedial students’ writing and traditional students’ writing, yet MacNealy’s book makes me think of the myriad of other possibilities for the differences in their writings. I was flabbergasted that she cuts directly to reflection, without examining any other possibilities. In short, I was left confused and unconvinced. Perhaps this just shows how much our area of study has indeed shaped itself into a discipline with its own standards and expectations, because this 1979 piece certainly looks almost nothing like current empirical work. How did you all perceive the study and its validity?
Pianko’s CCC article was difficult for me to commit to because I kept coming back to specifics she left out. Her method (as Natalie pointed out) if obviously empirical. Im not sure genre played a huge part for her b/c I didn’t think it was well defined. I felt like she skimmed the surface of genre with her description, her findings, her implications, etc. Also, she left out some assumptions, instead glazing over some very important details. Lastly, her terms were not concrete enough for me (“most” students do give a solid idea of how many). As Natalie stated, the assumptions made were unsubstantiated.
(my 100 words)
Natalie brings up an interetsing point about reading these two together. And that's is all I will say. Quick and right to the point.
Pianko's CCCs article on reflection in composing makes a lot of assumptions in its research: that the behaviors observed would mean the same thing in each student, that the "usual classroom conditions" are the same everywhere and that this is where to observe composing, that planning/prewriting are linked to sophistication and thus quality of product, that students knowledge that they were not being graded would not change their process of composing, and that this instance of observation was an accurate reflection of each student's writing.
Pianko uses observation, review of artifacts (she collects prewriting) and interviews - also she conducted a review of existing literature before conducting her research.
Genre does have a role here, at least in the analysis section. Pianko notes that one reason traditional students produced better writing is that they did not engage in school writing exclusively, unlike the remedial students, and were exposed to other writing outside of school through family and peers. Thus they could imagine writing as playing a role in their lives (other genres) beyond academic, whereas remedial students could not, according to Pianko.
After reading Pianko’s CCC’s article, I came away with questions similar to those yall expressed. As Natalie alludes to, MacNealy’s methodical text complicates Pianko’s less methodical one. MacNealy inculcates us with importance of conciseness, randomization, validity, and so on, and consequently, when we see a lack of that in the Pianko piece, we instantly throw up our caution flags, as if to say, “something is a little fishy here.” I echo Kara’s sentiments concerning Pianko’s vague language (i.e. – “Most remedial students explained…”). The study only had 17 students, ten of which were remedial—I think she definitely could have been more specific. Furthermore, I think the assumptions she makes based of this study are a little too presumptuous. Though I do not necessarily disagree that reflection is a component (not thee component) that differentiates more from less able writers, I do not think this study (of only 17 students) is grounds for making the sort of connections that she did. I guess that is MacNealy talking to me again: the larger the sample size the better.
In “Reflection” we are privy to an empirical study of “traditional” and “remedial” writing processes. Pianko draws the conclusion that traditional writers spend more time reflecting on their own work, a practice that results in a better product. Pianko describes her study—17 students, one day, one classroom, standard questions—yet readers are not given much information beyond that. So, taking Pianko’s CCC article at face value, I was struck by how universal this claim seems to be. Unlike some of my peers, I saw genre in this piece. Perhaps Pianko’s genre is not explicit, but there seems to be a universality about her claim. Pianko’s finds seem to expand beyond composition and are perhaps applicable to every artistic or creative genre. I’m sure most accomplished “traditional” artists utilize reflection as a tool for success.
100 words – not enough, but here’s what stands out: Key assumption in the CCC study - writing to a prompt in a timed classroom situation is an appropriate context in which to elicit typical writing behaviors. This seems problematic. I know this context would not elicit my most effective writing behaviors nor my best writing. Key methods (observing, noting, listening to student accounts of, analyzing, and deducing causes for observed behaviors) will not account for my alternative style nor my potential for success. And see how bad my writing is when my word count is limited? I rest my case!
Assumptions: 17 students is an adequate sample?, certain behaviors are suggestive of certain cognitive functions (mental conclusions from physical??), the “quality of the pauses (pausal quality??), the categorization of traditional and remedial writers (broad and generalized), the leap from exposure to writing genres to appropriate reflection practices?
Genre does indeed play a role in this piece. Genre is seen as the gateway to reflection because the “traditional” students were exposed to more avenues of writing (academic and social), whereas the “remedial” students were not. Pianko saw this as having a direct correlation to reflection practices.
Assumptions: I agree with many of the observations made here, particularly those made by Liane, Jill and Ruth, but allow me to highlight three, the first two of which I'll simply note since many of you have already discussed them. First, Pianko assumes that external behaviors are indicative of mental processes. (Yes, they have the potential to be, but I wouldn't go much further than identifying that potential.) Second, the moments of reflection are what contribute to the more effective writing. (Like Natalie, I'm doubtful that Pianko's article in CCC proves this position.) Finally, because this was an empirical study, Pianko assumes that there is an actually reality "out there" beyond language, which we can, in turn, capture and quantify. I find that problematic.
Method: Wait. This wasn't an ethnography? :)
Genre: I think I read this question a bit differently than the rest of you. I was thinking about it in terms of the difference in genre between the two Pianko articles and the effect that had on what information she was able to provide. I know I'm over my word limit, so perhaps we can revisit this in class next week.
"The act of reflection during composing-behaviorially manifested as pauses and rescanning...is the single most significant aspect...revealed by this study" (CCC 277).
Pianko starts very briefly and general, pointing out past studies (citing other researchers), gaps, and limited comprehensive research on college writers of different groups and their writing processes. An empirical study, as a clinician, she describes the design of her study: the participants, the acknowledge of behavioral concerns through interviews, the conditions and boundaries. Once the claim is stated (in favor of traditional students use of what Emig terms "filled pauses" 276), Pianko gives interpretations for the findings, those of which may be valid or invalid, still raise questions about avalibility, confidence, and mental maturity that effect pre-writing. And finally the article returns to a more general solution- implications for research and teaching- back to process-oriented teaching of all levels.
10 comments:
The CCC Pianko article was an interesting read for me. Pianko is rather straightforward about her goal: investigating and characterizing the writing patterns of “traditional” and “remedial” college freshmen. Her method is certainly empirical (her use of .05 significance tips this off). In terms of genre, she includes a description of the significance of/need for her research project, her methods, her findings, and then what she considers the implications of her work (unlike the primarily historical references and timeline approach which our past historical readings have utilized). However, the assumptions she makes throughout the study are problematic and, in my opinion, rather unsubstantiated.
(There is my 100 words, but I want to throw out a question/observation to you all, sorry I have to…)
Reading this piece directly after MacNealy became a problem for me. I not sure if it’s just the date of publication—if the standard for empirical research has changed that greatly over 25 years—but her claims seemed rather unsubstantiated to me. She mentions that the “high ranked writing pieces showed blah blah…”, but she never explains how what type of evaluation system she was using for this ranking. She mentions that she asked the students questions about their processes, but we receive no appendix with those questions to see the information she is drawing these conclusions from. On page 3 she throws out a “speculation” that traditional writer do more non-school writing and see more family/peer writing than remedial students, yet she presents no research or citation to support that speculation (which leads me to note the complete lack of citations altogether). In the end, she asserts that reflection alone is the difference between remedial students’ writing and traditional students’ writing, yet MacNealy’s book makes me think of the myriad of other possibilities for the differences in their writings. I was flabbergasted that she cuts directly to reflection, without examining any other possibilities. In short, I was left confused and unconvinced. Perhaps this just shows how much our area of study has indeed shaped itself into a discipline with its own standards and expectations, because this 1979 piece certainly looks almost nothing like current empirical work. How did you all perceive the study and its validity?
Pianko’s CCC article was difficult for me to commit to because I kept coming back to specifics she left out. Her method (as Natalie pointed out) if obviously empirical. Im not sure genre played a huge part for her b/c I didn’t think it was well defined. I felt like she skimmed the surface of genre with her description, her findings, her implications, etc. Also, she left out some assumptions, instead glazing over some very important details. Lastly, her terms were not concrete enough for me (“most” students do give a solid idea of how many). As Natalie stated, the assumptions made were unsubstantiated.
(my 100 words)
Natalie brings up an interetsing point about reading these two together. And that's is all I will say. Quick and right to the point.
Pianko's CCCs article on reflection in composing makes a lot of assumptions in its research: that the behaviors observed would mean the same thing in each student, that the "usual classroom conditions" are the same everywhere and that this is where to observe composing, that planning/prewriting are linked to sophistication and thus quality of product, that students knowledge that they were not being graded would not change their process of composing, and that this instance of observation was an accurate reflection of each student's writing.
Pianko uses observation, review of artifacts (she collects prewriting) and interviews - also she conducted a review of existing literature before conducting her research.
Genre does have a role here, at least in the analysis section. Pianko notes that one reason traditional students produced better writing is that they did not engage in school writing exclusively, unlike the remedial students, and were exposed to other writing outside of school through family and peers. Thus they could imagine writing as playing a role in their lives (other genres) beyond academic, whereas remedial students could not, according to Pianko.
Liane
I'm sorry user (Liane), but you have gone over your 100 word count. Thanks for playing. Try again next time.
(This is an automated response).
:)
After reading Pianko’s CCC’s article, I came away with questions similar to those yall expressed. As Natalie alludes to, MacNealy’s methodical text complicates Pianko’s less methodical one. MacNealy inculcates us with importance of conciseness, randomization, validity, and so on, and consequently, when we see a lack of that in the Pianko piece, we instantly throw up our caution flags, as if to say, “something is a little fishy here.” I echo Kara’s sentiments concerning Pianko’s vague language (i.e. – “Most remedial students explained…”). The study only had 17 students, ten of which were remedial—I think she definitely could have been more specific. Furthermore, I think the assumptions she makes based of this study are a little too presumptuous. Though I do not necessarily disagree that reflection is a component (not thee component) that differentiates more from less able writers, I do not think this study (of only 17 students) is grounds for making the sort of connections that she did. I guess that is MacNealy talking to me again: the larger the sample size the better.
In “Reflection” we are privy to an empirical study of “traditional” and “remedial” writing processes. Pianko draws the conclusion that traditional writers spend more time reflecting on their own work, a practice that results in a better product. Pianko describes her study—17 students, one day, one classroom, standard questions—yet readers are not given much information beyond that. So, taking Pianko’s CCC article at face value, I was struck by how universal this claim seems to be. Unlike some of my peers, I saw genre in this piece. Perhaps Pianko’s genre is not explicit, but there seems to be a universality about her claim. Pianko’s finds seem to expand beyond composition and are perhaps applicable to every artistic or creative genre. I’m sure most accomplished “traditional” artists utilize reflection as a tool for success.
100 words – not enough, but here’s what stands out:
Key assumption in the CCC study - writing to a prompt in a timed classroom situation is an appropriate context in which to elicit typical writing behaviors.
This seems problematic. I know this context would not elicit my most effective writing behaviors nor my best writing.
Key methods (observing, noting, listening to student accounts of, analyzing, and deducing causes for observed behaviors) will not account for my alternative style nor my potential for success.
And see how bad my writing is when my word count is limited? I rest my case!
Method: Empirical (“statistics”, “data”, “observation”)
Assumptions: 17 students is an adequate sample?, certain behaviors are suggestive of certain cognitive functions (mental conclusions from physical??), the “quality of the pauses (pausal quality??), the categorization of traditional and remedial writers (broad and generalized), the leap from exposure to writing genres to appropriate reflection practices?
Genre does indeed play a role in this piece. Genre is seen as the gateway to reflection because the “traditional” students were exposed to more avenues of writing (academic and social), whereas the “remedial” students were not. Pianko saw this as having a direct correlation to reflection practices.
Assumptions: I agree with many of the observations made here, particularly those made by Liane, Jill and Ruth, but allow me to highlight three, the first two of which I'll simply note since many of you have already discussed them. First, Pianko assumes that external behaviors are indicative of mental processes. (Yes, they have the potential to be, but I wouldn't go much further than identifying that potential.) Second, the moments of reflection are what contribute to the more effective writing. (Like Natalie, I'm doubtful that Pianko's article in CCC proves this position.) Finally, because this was an empirical study, Pianko assumes that there is an actually reality "out there" beyond language, which we can, in turn, capture and quantify. I find that problematic.
Method: Wait. This wasn't an ethnography? :)
Genre: I think I read this question a bit differently than the rest of you. I was thinking about it in terms of the difference in genre between the two Pianko articles and the effect that had on what information she was able to provide. I know I'm over my word limit, so perhaps we can revisit this in class next week.
"The act of reflection during composing-behaviorially manifested as pauses and rescanning...is the single most significant aspect...revealed by this study" (CCC 277).
Pianko starts very briefly and general, pointing out past studies (citing other researchers), gaps, and limited comprehensive research on college writers of different groups and their writing processes. An empirical study, as a clinician, she describes the design of her study: the participants, the acknowledge of behavioral concerns through interviews, the conditions and boundaries. Once the claim is stated (in favor of traditional students use of what Emig terms "filled pauses" 276), Pianko gives interpretations for the findings, those of which may be valid or invalid, still raise questions about avalibility, confidence, and mental maturity that effect pre-writing. And finally the article returns to a more general solution- implications for research and teaching- back to process-oriented teaching of all levels.
Post a Comment