Readings Nov. 14

Hutchby, I. & Wooffitt, R. (2008). Conversation analysis, 2nd edition. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.

Potter, J. & Hepburn, A. (2012). Eight challenges for interview researchers. In J.F. Gubrium & J.S. Holstein (Eds.) Handbook of interview research (2nd ed.) London, Sage.

Antaki, C., Billig, M.G., Edwards, D. & Potter, J.A., (2003). Discourse analysis means doing analysis: A critique of six analytic shortcomings. Discourse Analysis Online, 1. 

Goodman, S. (2008). The generalizability of discursive research. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 5(4) p. 265-275.

*********************** 

Reflection on ATLAS.ti and Technology

I like to rate technology based on two things: is it user-friendly and does it do what I need it to? ATLAS.ti allowed me to organize my documents and the analysis of those documents. It housed an audio file, a handful of pdf's, and my notes (memos) and codes. I was able to link my audio file with my transcription while I created the transcription. So, yes it did what I needed it to do. 

However, the program itself is neither intuitive or user-friendly. I had to reference Ann Bennett's notes and the help section every time I worked on my analysis, which considerably slowed down my work. I am quick to learn new technology and consider myself tech savvy. This was a frustrating experience for me. Also, ATLAS.ti is not available on Mac's right now. I had to borrow an ASUS Eee PC laptop. Combining this slow, terribly designed machine with a non-user-friendly program was not conducive to maintaining a calm working environment. 

Side note: I tried the iPad app. It was a bigtime failure. The audio recording does not run in the background, so when the energy saver started, the audio turned itself off. I coded some documents and only some of the coding transferred to the PC. I would not recommend the app until some major updates have taken place. 

I am very grateful that the Ed Tech people had laptops to borrow. I understand that they can't stock high quality machines. I really depend on using technology to increase the speed and lessen the frustrations of the huge electronic workload that I have to maintain. I'm just giving my opinions on the technology troubles that I've had the last semester. I think you get my point, and I am now moving on to readings.

Readings

Goodman: Wrote 5 truths that discursive work should have to claim generalizability. Mostly linking to rhetorical actions to strategies, and those strategies can be found across a range of contexts doing the same action. I think this is interesting and wonder if there are enough empirical research articles to do this. However, this is helpful to me in that there are not a lot of articles on art teacher evaluation, but if I see that the art teachers use a strategy like "I was just doing x, and then y happened" to accomplish a certain thing, then I can compare this strategy and action with other contexts besides art teacher conversations. My work would then be generalizable and fruitful by providing a new context for that strategy/action. (Does that sound right?)

Antaki, et. al: A practical document as I'm going through analyzing data. The authors warn of 6 mistakes made in data analysis. In my own data, I have tried to use excerpts where interesting actions were taking place. However, the actions that I am choosing to focus on are ones that I have read about, like self-repair. This is a helpful document, and one that I will go back to as I complete my data analysis paper.

Potter & Hepburn: I wish I had read this chapter before I wrote my comps... I would have used this! From other readings over the last two semesters, I understood that the interviewer's questions should be included in transcription, because what they say does something. However, I hadn't thought of the acknowledgement tokens (p. 20, 27) as actions that push a social science agenda (yikes!).

 

Readings Nov. 7

Lester, J.N. & Paulus, T.M. (2011). Accountability and public displays of knowing in an undergraduate computer-mediated communication context. Discourse Studies, 1-16. 

Paulus, T. & Lester, J.N. (2012). Making learning ordinary: ways undergraduates display learning in a CMC task. Text & Talk 33(1), 53-70. 

************************ 

For a full review of Lester & Paulus (2011) from July 22nd, click here.

Paulus & Lester's (2012) work is a continuation of the 2011 article on CMC (Computer-mediated communication) in Dr. Smith's nutrition course. In this study, the students were asked to write a blog after a lecture on dietary supplements. Their writing prompt was "What did you learn or how did your understandings change?" (p.59).  The authors found three ways that students oriented themselves to learning in this situation: an extreme state, a neutral state, and no learning. 

As I'm reading work by Lester and/or Paulus, I understand DP and DA better than at any other point in my studies. (So thank you.) It is a little strange writing a blog about my learning on an article about how students negotiate learning within blogs. I would say that to this point I have used a neutral state to assess my learning by reporting the news. But now, with the addition of the last two sentences, the blog has become reflexive.