ENED+691+Data+Summary

//**Context**: The mid-way point of the culminating project for all English Education majors for a graduate degree is the data collection summary. This piece was composed after collecting data during the spring of 2012 at the high school I taught at during that time. The purpose of the data collection summary was not only to look at the data as a whole, but to also begin the data analysis section of the 692 write up that would occur next in sequence. // INTRODUCTION  Over the course of the spring semester, I have been collecting data from several sources in my second period Advanced Placement – Language & Composition class in order to address my main research question along with my sub-questions:
 * What happens, if anything, within students’ language in multiple rhetorical situations in a high school English classroom setting?
 * How, if at all, do students change their language according to different rhetorical purposes (daybook writing, Ning posts, reflections, essays, class discussions)?
 * How, if at all, do students change their language according to different audiences (face-to-face encounters [small groups, student-teacher, round table discussion], online discussion boards)?
 * How, if at all, do students conceptualize rhetorical concepts such as audience and purpose?
 * How, if at all, do students conceptualize their knowledge of rhetorical concepts, such as audience and purpose, and utilize that knowledge to gain awareness of their own responses?

Since I had so many data collection points, I decided I needed to figure out a process concerning the one that was going to be the most logistically challenging – class discussions. As I began collecting data, I realized that I was going to have some difficulty catching certain nuances in that data type, so I implemented the use of an app on my iPad called QuickVoice that allowed me to record, save, and name the conversations and/or discussions that I was recording in my classroom. I found out that this was much more fruitful for me as it allowed me to not have to worry about picking up on subtlety and it allowed me to be an observer and a researcher rather than a participant in those types of discussions.

One element of research that I found extremely beneficial for me was to be reflective during and directly after collecting any data. This allowed me to look at the direct implications of some of the decisions I made as a teacher and a researcher without losing the initial or gut reactions I had. Along with making initial observations and reflections, I went back through those notes once a week and completed a mini-reflection on what I saw happening either in the data or in my own process as a researcher.

About halfway through my data collection, I realized some important things about myself as a teacher through my research, and those realizations affected my processes and my practices in my classroom as a teacher-researcher even after I was officially done collecting data for this research.

OVERVIEW OF DATA As I started collecting data, I realized that I was going to be saturated if I included some of the data points from which I initially thought I would collect. Instead of focusing on a broad range of collection points, I focused on four major sources for data: Ning assigments, writing group discussions, whole-class discussions, and individual teacher-student discussions/assignments. These four types of assignments allowed me to gather a focused type of data that I needed in order to prevent my data from becoming jumbled and inconsistent with my research questions.

Ning assignments included student responses that were completed via directed prompts that I gave to students on different discussion threads in order to complete the assignment. I collected a total of five different Ning assignments – three asked students to respond to reading assignments, one asked students to reflect on an essay that was formally assessed, one asked students to reflect on a group activity that was completed in class. I collected this data via our class’s Ning discussion board by copying and pasting the entire discussion thread to a Word document.

Small group discussions, whole class discussions and student-teacher conferences were recorded via the above mentioned method and then transcribed to Word documents. This process allowed me to not only review the discussions and/or conversations but it also allowed me to pick up on the small parts of discussion that I may have missed as an observer on that particular day. I collected two different types of small group discussions – writing groups based on responding to student writing and discussions based on a text that students were asked to read. For each type, I collected data from at least two different small groups in order to vary my data. For whole class discussions, I recorded and transcribed five different whole discussions that students participated in during class. These discussions focused on reading students were asked to complete outside of class be prepared to discuss the next class period. For student-teacher conferences, I recorded and transcribed one day of conferences with all of my students from the beginning of the data collection period.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">In order to effectively collect and utilize student work in forms of daybook writing and essays, I decided to collect the student-created portfolios that students completed after the first six-week grading period of the semester. These portfolios include student-chosen daybook entries, several required daybook entries of varying type, a draft of an essay and an overall reflection. Students submitted these portfolios electronically via Google Documents using the presentation tool. Students were given time in class to plan and prepare their portfolios for an assessment using a rubric that I designed with students at the beginning of the school year in October.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Because of the amount and the variety of data that I have collected, I have decided to complete case studies on five different students – three females and two males. Each student’s individual data will be compiled and analyzed separately to discover if there are any individual patterns between collection points and/or between students. I have chosen these students based on some observations that I have made post-data collection.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">DATA ANALYSIS <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Reviewing my data has been eye opening to how many things are going on in my classroom at a given time, specifically concerning student language and the choices students make during the time I have them in my classroom. With this being said, I have noticed four patterns coming up across my data – differences in the ways: students talk about their own writing, students talk about the writing of others, students write about their own writing, and students writing about the writing of others (literature/non-fiction/poetry).

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">After reviewing one Ning assignment late in my data collection, I could not be helped but startled by the first post that one of the students wrote in response to the prompt for the assignment. The prompt I gave them is below: <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Reflect/react to the essay written by Susan B. Anthony about women's suffrage by discussing 2-4 "take aways" from the text and discussing their importance OR discussing some commonalities between this and Wollstonecraft's "Vindication..." Remember to use specific quotes from the text to support your ideas/opinions. Reply to at least 2 classmates - remember to spread the love!

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Megan* was the first student to respond to this assignment on the Ning discussion board. //<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Pardon me, but I must say both Susan B. Anthony and Wollstonecraft are pretty bad ass! Both of them weren't afraid to address the men in charge. SBA really got to the point that the ones who run the government go against the constitution and everything their government SHOULD stand for. I loved where she said, **"It was we, the people; not we, the white male citizens; nor yet we, the male citizens; but we, the whole people, who formed the Union."** Both her and Wollstonecraft craft point out to their audience that there are indeed other people besides men in the country and they should all be treated the same. They both also had this "sassy" tone about them, a tone that is just kind of like 'look, here are the facts as I see them, and how everyone else should see them.' // //<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Typically I can't stand women's rights stuff, but these gals put a twist on it. I have new respect for them. //

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">There are some interesting language choices going on in this response where students were asked to write about other’s writing. However, one choice that really stuck out to me was Megan’s decision to use the term “bad ass” in her response to describe Susan B. Anthony. This is not exactly the language that I was expecting from an online discussion thread – it surprised me – I actually laughed a little bit because it honestly shocked me that after an entire semester of participating in discussion threads and knowing my expectations for them, a student decided to use slightly offensive language. Megan praises Anthony for being a “bad ass” but also addresses how she “typically…can’t stand women’s rights stuff.” While her response supported this claim of Susan B. Anthony’s unrelenting persistence, what was interesting was the response that came from another one of her classmates.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">In writing about Megan’s original reply, Clay* posted the following: “I completely agree with you Marla! Ya girl goes hella hard!” It seems that because Megan made the rhetorical choice to use the language she did, she indirectly gave other students permission to make the same rhetorical choices in their responses, as Clay did in his. Clay say Megan model her writing about others’ writing in this way, and it appears that this became Clay’s “model” for not only writing about Megan’s writing, but also writing about Anthony’s writing later on. Megan also chose to bold the quote from the text that she utilized to support her response, something that had not been done in her past responses.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Later on in the discussion thread, Clay also seems to mimic several of Megan’s rhetorical decisions in his reply: //<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">So Susan B. Anthony is harajuku legit! I love how she uses the constitution/preamble, whatever you call it, as almost like a, "baha, got you there!" It's like she's just throwing blows at this country founding text, and dissing it in a classy manner. Like she goes line for line and just tells them how their wrong each time. **"It was we, the people; not we, the white male citizens; nor yet we, the male citizens; but we, the whole people, who formed the Union. And we formed it, not to give the blessings of liberty, but to secure them; not to the half of ourselves and the half of our posterity, but to the whole people - women as well as men."** This whole baby sentence just throws up a big F you to the founding fathers! Hate that! I feel as though she had to be so straight forward to get attention. No one wants to hear some quaint garbage. You got to be reckless to get the attention she was seeking, just take me for example. // //<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Peace, love and sophisticated black woman. //

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Not only does Clay seem to mimic the tone of Megan’s reply, but he also made the decision to bold the quote that he used from the text to support his claim – one that firmly roots his argument and point of Anthony “throwing blows at this country (sic) founding text and dissing it in a class manner.” Clay’s knowledge of audience and purpose does not seem to present itself in this particular post as he responds to Anthony’s serious essay about the need for women’s rights in America. He also makes the choice to talk about Anthony throwing “up a big F you” or that no one wants to “hear some quaint garbage.” His combination of formal language plus slang in this response may suggest that Clay either understands his audience and is attempting to connect to them or does not understand the audience, which technically includes me although I am absent from discussion. These rhetorical decisions bring into question his purpose for utilizing language that is not expected or necessary in class, regardless of the environment.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">As I looked back at this particular discussion, I noted that I did not insert myself into this conversation at all – rather, I simply observed; I also had a similar experience during a whole-class discussion about Sherwood Anderson’s Winesburg, Ohio. Instead of prompting students or responding to students, I simply observed and reflected on what was going on during the discussion. It seemed that students did not see me as a member of the audience since I was not involved in the actual conversation up until the end when Clay asked, “Are we done, Mrs. Futrelle?” Even though I was not in the conversation and not prompting students with questions or affirming thoughts or ideas, do students still see me as a member of their audience – the one with authority – in a traditional face-to-face classroom environment?