Digital Tools Blog for 7.17.13

Reading Reflections:

PLD – Chapter 3 – Collaborating/Managing Projects

It was interesting to read about the “creative conversational process”, especially in light of our conversations last night in discursive psychology.  In class last night, and as I read today I was thinking that being truly (there is that word…) collaborative is possible – when participants share the same agenda (or, at least that has been my experience).     I was thinking about how a Reading Recovery colleague and I might use Skype next year in the way you describe.  I could have it up and on and she could pipe in whenever she needed to, or I could contact her.  She will be working out of Atlanta and I will be here (and sometimes vice versa) and we will be juggling several projects in the region.   We will need to speak face to face sometimes, and Skype would be a good option.    When I read Case Study 3.1, I thought about how I might set up a blog like this when I do my dissertation – either with a group of Reading Recovery teacher leaders (who would be the focus of my dissertation) or with the Reading Recovery teacher (if I decide to look at teacher/student interactions only).

Kilbourn – The Dissertation Proposal

Thank you for this article.  I remember reading it last semester in Advanced Qual, but reading it again was really valuable…as every day that passes I am one day closer to needing to write such a proposal.    I think that this article, and several of the proposals you have provided us with from DP will be great models when the time comes to write mine. 

I thought Kilbourn did a nice job of articulating how important it is that the proposal make a case for (an argument for) conducting the research.   He begins by offering this clear cut definition of a proposal, “A proposal, then, is a piece of writing that outlines the problem to be addressed, sets the boundaries for the sorts of claims that will be made, and articulates the methods by which those claims will be supported by evidence and argument.  It is a piece of writing that sets in motion a process that customarily culminates in the oral defense of the dissertation”.

Kilbourn spends some time reflecting on Toulmin’s work on argument.  Toulmin sees the theoretical framework as a “point of view that legitimizes the manner in which the interpretations are justified or warranted”.  The frame of the argument is as follows: 1) There is a formal argument pattern, 2) arguments are incredibly complex and layered, 3) Warrants aren’t explicit until interpretations are challenged.   I like that Kilbourn differentiates the goals of the argument in a proposal and in a dissertation.  In a proposal, the author is constructing an argument for even doing the research.  In the dissertation the argument is constructed to support the interpretations of the study.

I thought it was interesting that in several places Kilbourn gives the reader model language structures to use in the proposal.  Page 538 is a good example (“The problem this study will address is”…) where Kilbourn gives the language and a stern bit of advice to readers…he stresses the necessity of the clarity of the problem statement.  He offers more language on pages 561 and 562 (“Consequently, in light of the argument just made, our understanding of so and so has been inadequately researched.  In this proposed study I will address the problem by”….).   He really does lay out a nice structure, provides the rationale for the structure and gives some language prompts to support the reader as they become the writer of a proposal. 

On page 553, Kilbourn refers to Erickson (1986) when offering questions that field work is best at answering.   I was thinking of these questions as related to the studies I am considering (Reading Recovery teacher leaders in training or the interactions between a child and a Reading Recovery teacher) and also through the lens of discursive psychology.  All 3 areas focus on the social action between participants.

The Appendix – Qualities of a Proposal – was also useful.  This is the most comprehensive document on proposal writing I have seen.  I took a class – 640 in TPTE that was supposed to help give new entrants a solid understanding of the process  and the various aspects of the process (comps, proposal, dissertation etc).  It was a good overview, but could have been enhanced by reading and discussion of an article like this!  Thanks, again!

*At the close of class, you asked us to connect the readings for Thursday to discussions last night.  I will get those readings done and will post again before class.  I have been writing about my readings due Tuesday and reflecting on class Tuesday night in my Wednesday night post and focusing my Friday post on the Thursday readings and Thursday class.  

 

Skill builder update:

Going paperless – I have made a commitment to read and annotate all of my readings for this class on my ipad with IAnnotate.  So far, so good.  I like the portability of this option.  I just need to remember to throw my ipad in my bag and to have it charged at all times.   I like having access to all the readings and all my notes.  There are so many times when I am thinking about something and want to reread or refresh my memory.   It is nice to have things readily available for reference.    I was worried about my comprehension being affected by switching to digital format.  One thing that I have notices is that I tend to zone out a little more.  I catch myself coming to the end of a paragraph and thinking…”what did I just read?” and I have to go back and give it another go.  I think the ease of the scrolling and my internet habit of surfing has come into my reading.  I just need to be aware of it, and adjust.  I think over time I will zone out and need to reread less.   *I noticed through our small group conversations that my comprehension of the readings WAS impacted.  When you mentioned the four different sections of the chapter, I drew a blank.  I read every word of the chapter but couldn’t call up the four major sections before you named them.  I need to be even more aware of how this new approach is impacting what I understand about what I read.

On IAnnotate, I like the highlight and note features.  I also like how it is displayed all together in the left hand margin when I go to review them.   When I do my reading blog posts, I just pull up that column, review my highlights or notes, and then write in response.   This is really similar to what I do when I handwrite and scribble in the margins and then write a response (still paper for DP so I can compare the processes).  One benefit to the digital version is that I can actually decipher my scribbles – sometimes when I hand write I can’t make heads or tails of what I wanted to say.   One interesting difference so far is the nature of the notes.  I think I write more content and ideas and elaborate more when I hand write.  When make digital notes, so far, they have tended to be shorter and more directive.  I think that being aware of this will help me change it.

 

I met with Ann Monday before our DP class.  She helped me with a couple of aspects of Mendeley that were difficult for me.  I couldn’t figure out how to get articles saved directly from a search (from Google Scholar or Academic Search Premier) into my Mendeley account.  We loaded the web importer on both of my main search engines – Google Chrome and Internet Explorer, and now it is working really well.  Ann also showed me how to be working in a word document and “insert citation” from the reference tab (we had to add that feature) and also how to insert a bibliography.  This is amazing and will save me so much time when I write!  Very, very nice. The sync feature is also great.  I have Mendeley on my laptop, and on my ipad and I have a web account.  In an instant, all the articles are in every place.  So cool. 

I appreciate the opportunity to investigate these tools.  These assignments are perfect for me – as someone who isn’t always comfortable with technology and needs support to get under way with them.

 

Class Reflections:

Thank you for the email about Dr. Anfara, and also for giving some time to class to offer their thoughts. 

 I really enjoyed hearing from the presenters about the various cite management tools.  I chose Mendeley based on a gut feeling and word of mouth from others.  I felt better about my choice after hearing all that Mary Alice had to say.  I realized as she spoke that I have learned quite a bit about this tool in a very short amount of time.  I am glad that Mendeley has social networking options, but I am not sure I will use them very much.  I may create a small private group – of colleagues that are studying similar topics, or my chair, but I do not see myself creating a profile and having a public presence through the site.

 Our small group discussions were good.  One of our group members shared negative experiences about writing a proposal and having the entire thing shot down by committee members.  He made a comment that resonated with my experiences here – “They just expect you to know how to do this!”  I believe you have said something similar in classes too.   There is so much knowledge regarding the proposal and the dissertation that is assumed.  I am grateful for direction with the proposal and dissertation through the Kilbourn article (and many other articles you have provided), small group discussions, and your “debriefing” comments.   No other class or professor has been as explicit as you have been with what is expected.

I thought Blackboard Collaborate worked really well for us last night.  I have been in on-line classes that used Collaborate that I thought were a complete bust – people had tech difficulties, the content seemed flat, and there wasn’t much discussion.  I felt like last night was a good balance – different presenters, plenty of time in small group, and some whole group discussion time.  I do wonder if it went well because we are all familiar with one another through “live” classes.