Creative or Fear of Cover Art?

Reading Zoetewey’s article, I first questioned whether my decision to not decorate my laptop was financial—I waited at 4:00 am at Staples for this laptop!  Nope. I have stickers on my car, and my car costs more than this laptop. Is it ethos? Do I worry what others will think of my rhetorical choices in stickers? Not really. I don’t really think about what my computer speaks of me.

One of my favorite quotes when discussing annotation is from Van Doran and Adler’s text How to Read a Book:  “Full ownership of a book only comes when you have made it a part of yourself, and the best way to make yourself a part of it-which comes to the same thing-is by writing in it.”  I write all over my books. I place stickers and sticky notes throughout, and it is clear that the books are mine. From my copies of Harry Potter to Ohmann, you can tell the books are mine. But, I never write on the cover.

Now that I have shifted to my computer for much of my composing and consuming, I highlight, comment, note, and “make it my own” in Word and Mendeley. But, I never write on the cover.

Why is the cover an issue for me? Do you write on the covers of your books? Your laptop? Your phone? Do you see a comparison between the books in your life and the technology? Do you find yourself “judging” others based on such choices?

Not My Story to Tell, BUT It Has Me Questioning!

I am going to address a story that is not my own, but that of one of our colleagues. She, an international student, attended CCCs in Indy and chose to attend one of the SIGs. She shared her experience in class tonight, and I couldn’t help but think of “Laboring to Globalize a First-Year Writing Program.” Our colleague wanted to attend a SIG geared to TESOL interests, but seeing none, she chose to attend one for Asian and Asian-American attendees (all attendees she observed were Asian-American but she). Not only was there little discussion of TESOL, one participant (as relayed by our colleague) became a bit hostile noting that they had no desire to think or work with second-language students. Rather than staying for the full discussion, our colleague chose to leave early.

I chewed on this most of my drive home. Why would an Asian-American colleague have such a reaction to TESOL? Granted, I was not in the room and am hearing this from another. But, I wonder if some of our colleagues often feel forced into the conversation of TESOL by their cultural background. I often get cornered into conversations being an adjunct; as soon as someone hears I am, the questions and assumptions begin. The difference, I can choose to voice my role as an adjunct or not. Our Asian-American colleagues do not have such a choice.

Hesford, Singleton, and Garcia ask: “How, for instance, might we integrate transnational and cross-cultural texts and methods into the writing curriculum without colonizing the literature of the “other” or positioning certain writing teachers or students, namely international or nonnative English speakers, as objects of cultural consumption? In other words, how is the international, nonnative English speaker, and/or graduate teaching associates (GTAs) of color positioned in such a curriculum? And what are some of the issues that we as writing program administrators (WPAs) need to consider in light of such likely positions? (115)” In light of our colleagues encounter at CCCCs, I see these questions quite relevant. As one not seen as an “outsider”, these are questions I had not thought to ask. The authors encourage that our colleagues often seen as “outsiders” can and should be seen as “sources of authority” in a radical multiculturalism.

 So, have you observed BSU or other schools that you have attended or worked at attempt to not just celebrate difference but recognize and address “global power differentials”?

Not My Story To Tell, BUT It Has Me Questioning

I am going to address a story that is not my own, but that of one of our colleagues. She, an international student, attended CCCs in Indy and chose to attend one of the SIGs. She shared her experience in class tonight, and I couldn’t help but think of “Laboring to Globalize a First-Year Writing Program.” Our colleague wanted to attend a SIG geared to TESOL interests, but seeing none, she chose to attend one for Asian and Asian-American attendees (all attendees she observed were Asian-American but she). Not only was there little discussion of TESOL, one participant (as relayed by our colleague) became a bit hostile noting that they had no desire to think or work with second-language students. Rather than staying for the full discussion, our colleague chose to leave early.

I chewed on this most of my drive home. Why would an Asian-American colleague have such a reaction to TESOL? Granted, I was not in the room and am hearing this from another. But, I wonder if some of our colleagues often feel forced into the conversation of TESOL by their cultural background. I often get cornered into conversations being an adjunct; as soon as someone hears I am, the questions and assumptions begin. The difference, I can choose to voice my role as an adjunct or not. Our Asian-American colleagues do not have such a choice.

Hesford, Singleton, and Garcia ask: “How, for instance, might we integrate transnational and cross-cultural texts and methods into the writing curriculum without colonizing the literature of the “other” or positioning certain writing teachers or students, namely international or nonnative English speakers, as objects of cultural consumption? In other words, how is the international, nonnative English speaker, and/or graduate teaching associates (GTAs) of color positioned in such a curriculum? And what are some of the issues that we as writing program administrators (WPAs) need to consider in light of such likely positions? (115)” In light of our colleagues encounter at CCCCs, I see these questions quite relevant. As one not seen as an “outsider”, these are questions I had not thought to ask. The authors encourage that our colleagues often seen as “outsiders” can and should be seen as “sources of authority” in a radical multiculturalism.

 So, have you observed BSU or other schools that you have attended or worked at attempt to not just celebrate difference but recognize and address “global power differentials”?

Paper is not dead!

This is a French commercial that I had to share in light of our conversation yesterday! I hope it brings a smile.

Finding Balance!

When we finished Research Design last week I was overwhelmed with the objective nature of research. There are so many details, processes, questions (with answers already provided), worldview driven choices, etc. Like I said last week, a playbook that I had yet to read existed.

However, I found myself sighing this week as I read researchers finding balance between the process/objective nature of research and the research itself.  I reacted to a discussion of narratives as “complex, meditative and rhetorical” (Journet 20); Rohan’s discussion of a “scholar’s sense of responsibility” (32) and the impact emotion and imagination can play in research projects (34); Interviews as a means to share knowledge within a conversational context (Selfe & Hawisher); and the strength of the composition study ethnography (Sheridan) which I will admit is a new form of research to me. These are just a few incidents where I felt relief-a reminder that I may not be too far out of my comfort zone.

The idea of “homegrown methods” (Haas, Takayoshi & Carr 60) of research in writing also struck a chord and may have pulled my thoughts together. I hate the idea of fitting into a fixed mold (a bit of emotion carried over from 699 Process reading).  Research Design is a great text to understand the constructs of research, but it is not a defining text of the study of writing. I am excited to read of those finding balance between respected forms of research and research that fits/works with our field of study.  There is room to adjust and adapt to the research question fixed within the researcher’s responsibility to the research and those reading it.

Choose Your Own Adventure/Research

There is so much to digest in Research Design! It is as if I am reading the roadmap to the next few years of my life in a choose-your-own-adventure format. I appreciate the grounding in philosophy Creswell provides and have to admit that I never really considered the worldview associated with the research but more the data I wish to collect. The more I read the more excited and yet overwhelmed I have become. I am not a detailed person by nature and have been blessed with partners in research who are/were gifted in details. I know that this will be my greatest challenge as I begin this stage of scholarship so having this text as a guide is reassuring.  Yet I still am feeling unsettled/unprepared for the amount of planning and detail work throughout the stages. I guess I am in the right class.

I find the discussion of validity, reliability and generalization intriguing (190-4), and that they vary between qualitative and quantitative. I did not necessarily realize that there was a difference between validity and reliability (oops). As I have not done larger projects, I have had little challenge to these or shall I say need to question thoroughly. I am struggling even admitting this!  Yet, I found myself going back to surveys I have worked on, and I can see where I have correctly gathered data, but the sampling details or generalization possibilities were weak.  There is so much to consider!!!! The details again are overwhelming. The need for consistency, written preparation, and follow-up is daunting and yet there are people who do this daily. This is a process and the text is a guide. Yes, I am talking myself into the research.

I spent my day calling Principals in Marion County. I approached it with a new sense of protocol focusing on my script and uniformed details to be recorded. Shall we say, my eyes are opened a bit wider today?