Chapter 9 of Farris and Anson's Under Construction: “Grounded Theory: A Critical Research Analogy” by Joyce Magnotto Neff
“The Process Approach to Writing instruction: Examining its Effectiveness” by Ruie J. Pritchard and Ronald L. Honeycutt
In her article, “Grounded Theory: A Critical Research Analogy,” Joyce Magnotto Neff introduces the reader to the methodology of grounded theory, and makes a case for it as being a crucial practice that should be adopted by those contributing to the field of composition research. Neff outlines her goals for the article as first of all, to focus on the need within the research community to publish “not only our research conclusions but also our justifications for the methodologies we select to reach those conclusions (124). Second of all, she seeks to start a “conversation about how we work as well as about what we find [which] can help us engage others in a dialogue about composition research” (124).
Grounded theory was developed by Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss for “qualitative research and for the ‘discovery of theory from data’” (qtd. in Neff 125). This theory is referred to as “grounded” because it is crucial that the results of the research are “always traceable to the data that gave rise to them” (125). Grounded theory involves the use of coding procedures, which are defined as “numerous intellectual maneuvers for grouping data and for naming the relationships among the groups or categories thus derived” (128). There are three defined coding procedures: open coding, axial coding, and selective coding.
At first, I was not sure how I felt about the grounded theory methodology. It seemed highly demanding, and the acknowledged limitations were daunting. It isn’t very inspiring to know that “one project can require months and even years to complete…and intellectually manipulating [the data] is difficult even with software programs for assistance” (125). Neither is it inspiring to know that “those applying the methodology must learn to live without closure” (126). However, as I continued to read I found that Neff made a compelling case for it as a practice, especially in application to the student who claimed not to be good at writing (This case study will be further discussed in my presentation, but the case is found on pages 129-130 of Neff’s article). Once I saw a smaller scale application of theory, I was able to appreciate the possibility of larger scale effects.
I found that I agreed with the details of Neff’s two claims at the end of the article, which answer the question, “Why grounded theory?” It is indeed an inclusive, interpretive, dialogic and proactive process, and I can see how it would allow for collaboration across disciplines, which is a concern that has been raised in past class discussions regarding the opportunity (or lack thereof) for collaboration between academics, teachers, and students. If grounded theory does prove to “help compositionists work the borderlands between scholarship and teaching” (132), I think it is worth looking in to.
The most interesting thing that Neff expresses, in my opinion, is the use of grounded theory in treating composition research more like scientific method than anything close to the literary field. We have discussed this issue in class before and there are no two ways about it, the writers we have been reading are pulling the fields of writing and literature apart, and for good reason. This article alone was enough to show me that there can be a scientific, logical process to writing, and this process may be the way of the future.
The second article I chose was “The Process Approach to Writing instruction: Examining its Effectiveness” by Ruie J. Pritchard and Ronald L. Honeycutt. The purpose of this article is, as the title suggests, to examine the process approach to writing instruction, and it does so by tracing the process of teaching writing through the years. I found that this article was very complementary to the first article, because the research presented justified, in my opinion, a need and explicit purpose for grounded theory analysis. A reason for utilizing grounded theory and other methodologies is because sometimes writing instruction approaches will fail, and researchers and teachers alike seek to know why. Going back to Neff’s article and the case study I mentioned earlier, which exemplified the practical application of grounded theory, the student expresses, “’I can’t write’, ‘I’m not good at writing’ and ‘I hate writing’” (Neff 129). It’s likely that this student had been exposed to the writing process, and something, somewhere went wrong. Studying how she was introduced to the writing process can serve as data for the coding procedures of grounded theory.
In reviewing the research that they gathered, Pritchard and Honeycutt note that researchers have “surprisingly different views of what the process approach entails…Some see it as a loosely monitored series of steps, a ‘natural process’ in the context of authentic tasks, without explicit instruction in planning, revising, and other strategies…Others regard direct strategy instruction and guided practice integrated into the writing practice as crucial to the definition of the process approach” (279). Citing several different studies, Pritchard and Honeycutt found that “all of these studies show to varying degrees positive results on writing products by using the writing process” (280). However, they also mention a key criticism of some of the most important studies—the need for more reliable data. This is where grounded theory makes a powerful case for itself, and Honeycutt utilized it in his own work.
I found that this article offered an interesting comparison to what we have discussed in class regarding the necessity of process in writing instruction. Based on the research cited in this article, it appears that students do better when exposed to a set process, although I believe that the variable in this situation is how the students respond to the approach their teacher takes. In Honeycutt’s research, he examined both writing process strategies as well as strategies toward dealing with negative emotions that may arise during the writing process (such as “I hate writing”), and found that “overall quality of students’ texts improved when students (1) internalized specific strategies for prewriting, writing, and revising; (2) employed self-regulation strategies to monitor the development of a text; and (3) activated strategies for dealing with negative emotions that arise during the writing process” (281).
The most important points I gathered from this article are that the writing process is crucial, instruction is key, and how a teacher instructs is paramount. Further, results are fantastic, but reliability (feeling able to trust the data) is key. The old step-by-step approaches are out, in favor of a more recursive model, which is more understanding of both the process and the students. I believe the work that the National Writing Project is doing will serve both teachers and students well, and perhaps it will aid in getting to the core of complaints such as “I hate writing,” by “not only improving writing products but also developing positive dispositions, social behaviors, problem solving, and other skills that have value in and of themselves” (285).
Discussion Questions
1. What do we think of this scientific/mathematical process toward writing? (e.g. treating writing as one might approach the scientific method)
2. What is the likelihood of practical application of grounded theory? Do the limitations outweigh the benefits? Does it succeed at being inclusive?
3. Having discussed the writing process, as well as the research put toward improving it, have the “art and soul of writing” been lost? Or is attention to the process freeing?
No comments:
Post a Comment