[Eng1508] Reply to Emily's Response to Amy

[Donna Evans]

Emily writes: "So in order for us to achieve the same results (or, to be
more specific, in order for us to model the paradigm) it seems not only
logical but necessary for multiple negotiations to take place among the
greatest number of stakeholders possible, including the students whose
bluebooks we have procured."

 

As I read Emily's post, I thought about how we might construct interaction
with students whose bluebooks we investigate. As we consider the information
we will code for, I imagine that we will identify a topic we want to pursue,
and that decision will invite investigation of some related topic or issue.
Although this interaction is limited to the development stage of our
evaluative process, it mimics the hermeneutic dialectics we plan to use.
That is, if we consider students' text as speech, and we carefully listen to
what is said, we are likely to expand our questions to reflect the voices in
the initial 99 student papers from which we form our inquiries.

 

Another way that we can pursue multiple negotiations is to determine what
other kinds of information we need about students, in addition to what we
find in their essays, so that questions are asked that value the
stakeholders. Granted, this process ends when we've settled on our coding
system. However, decisions must be made in order to avoid extending the
project in perpetuity. But with the additional negotiations, we can approach
(if not obtain) answers to questions that might not be asked in a
traditional evaluation.

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wsu.edu/pipermail/eng1508/attachments/20070121/5b002307/attachment-0001.html