English 5363--270: Research Methods in Composition and Technical Communication

Spring 2005

Course Syllabus and Home Page

Link to Ken's Powerpoint,

Important syllabus change, effective Feb. 9

I have decided to trim the number of substantial Web Board responses from 4 for the semester to 3. The first weeks of March were too crowded with things due. So there is no Web Board post due March 8. Instead, the Third Web Board post, originally due April 6, will now be due March 30. (It will become the second post due.) The third and final one remains due April 20.

The extra five points now available will be handled on an individual basis, with each student receiving those as bonus points either for outstanding MOO participation, outstanding posts, outstanding leadership of the group discussion, or an outstanding project. In other words, everyone should get those five points for something.

I have updated the online syllabus here to reflect this change. If you use a print version, please write in the changes.

5363 Word version for printing

5363 PDF version for printing

Last updated: Tuesday March 01, 2005

______________________

Class MOO meeting: Wed. 6 p.m. - 7:15 p.m. Lubbock Time (Central Time)

English Department MOO

Dr. Ken Baake

742-2501, ext. 250

Instructor office hours: Available at any time by email and phone (email first).

English 363B

ken.baake@ttu.edu

http://www.faculty.english.ttu.edu/baake

__________________________

Links to other related pages (not all links are up yet):

Baake Home page

Baake 5363 lecture notes at WebBoard

Ereserve

Human subjects research information

Metaphor lit review activity

______________________________

Links within this page:

Links to other related pages (not all links are up yet):

Baake Home page

Baake 5363 lecture notes at WebBoard

_____________________

Links within this page:

Overview

English 5363 is a graduate course for Ph.D. and MA English students who need an overview of the various research methods used in technical communication and rhetoric and composition (TCR). Technical communication generally refers to workplace documents dealing with technical or scientific subjects, while composition and rhetoric refers to teaching writing in the university.

There is no way around hours of intense work in a course like this, which may well be one of the most important you take in preparation for doctoral level research. It will also be fun, giving you a chance to try your hand at various research methods. The course will expose you to the methods available for conducting research and to journal articles and book chapters that exemplify such research. At the end of the course you will be able to do the following:

Conduct a thorough review of academic literature, which involves reading and analyzing various texts related to a research question and, most important, synthesizing those texts into a written form that justifies and compels your research.
Find and synthesize research from various disciplines that relate to TCR.
Find and synthesize research that uses a variety of methodologies appropriate to our field. These include bibliographic research (usually involving the researcher and texts) and empirical research (involving the researcher and observable phenomena in the outside world). Examples of both include library research, discourse analysis, ethnographies, surveys, usability studies, etc.
Understand the fundamentals of qualitative and quantitative research methods.
Be able to formulate meaningful and compelling research questions, including one that could develop into a dissertation question.
Be able to identify the appropriate research method or methods for different research questions.
Understand the range of research methods in terms of their abilities to assay knowledge in TCR. Likewise, appreciate the limitations of each method.
Work with a group of classmates to begin developing a specialty area in one or more research methods, which you will present to the class.

"This course builds on the assumption that research is closely related to theory and practice and that all research--qualitative, quantitative, or mixed--is an act of selecting and interpreting information" (Dr. Rickly, 2002 syllabus). When you do research you first are drawn to a nagging question in the field, something that excites you but also troubles you. For example, you might wonder whether the techniques and media used for teaching first-year composition are also appropriate for teaching technical writing. Perhaps you have taught both and have strained to incorporate argumentation strategies into some kinds of technical writing. That might lead you to ask, "Does the argumentation approach and its tools (enthymemes, warrants, etc.) have any relevance to technical writing? Or should we start from scratch teaching technical writing?" Now you have the beginnings of a research question.

An alternative way of finding a research question is to determine a broad area of interest, say grammar pedagogy and technical communication, and then conduct a literature review to arrive at possible unanswered questions. That is, you would follow the literature to the end of the path and then decide how best to build further onto that path.

Your next step is to delve deeply into books, journal articles, list serve archives, etc. to see what earlier work may relate to your question. You would also look at the history of composition and technical communication pedagogy to determine when (if ever) they diverged. From this search you would synthesize a literature review that showed what we already know from past research, and--most important for justifying further study--what we do not know. Finding out what hasn't yet been answered then helps you to focus and delimit your research question (s).

The next step would be to design a research project that could help move the field's knowledge a little further along toward answering your questions. This is when you determine what types of research would be most helpful, most trustworthy, and most honest in arriving at some meaningful insights or results. Perhaps you first would do exploratory research to test the applicability of a method to your question. For instance, you could conduct a small sample survey of beginning technical communication service course students to see what they recall from first year composition. This could lead you to an experiment where you taught one class how to write memos using enthymemes to formulate the main statements, or something to that effect. Ultimately, you would refine your research design (which includes your questions, planned research site, and methods).

The final steps involve collecting your information (could be hard data, could be more qualitative insights or impressions) and allowing that information to mix in your mind and your writing with the literature you reviewed. The goal is to synthesize possible answers to your questions, conclusions, recommendations for teaching or further study, etc.

To use a karate metaphor, I am not expecting any of you to become black belts at all of this. Being a good researcher and consumer of research is a lifelong project of steady hard work. But by the end you should be somewhat fluent in the skills and feel comfortable enough to move further in your graduate research studies.

Texts required

1. MacNealy, Mary Sue. Strategies for Research in Writing. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1999.

This will be our main text for marching through the research methods.

2. Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination. London: Sage Publications, 1998.

This author is social scientist at a university in Britain, so some of the references may seem a trifle foreign to us. But it is a magnificent book for learning how to intellectually engage a body of literature.

3. Johanek, Cindy. Composing Research: A Contextualist Paradigm for Rhetoric and Composition. Logan, Utah: Utah State P, 2000.

This fun book makes some strong arguments about how to choose research methods according to the context of your research setting.

4. Coursepack available at the Texas Tech Library ereserve.

This includes journal articles that exemplify different research methods.,

Content and grade percentages

This is a graduate class that will function at a high intellectual level. I expect to function as a more as a catalyst for knowledge, a co-learner, and editor/reviewer than as an evaluator. Still, grades are necessary to keep everyone focused and timely. Your grade will be determined by the following criteria and assignments.

§ MOO attendance, participation, and class activities (10 percent of grade)

Attendance is required. This class meets once a week in the MOO. Try not to miss any classes. If you must be absent, alert me in advance if possible and make provisions for making up any missed work. More than one absence or significant late arrival would cause you to lose a lot of attendance points. Please carefully read the readings prior to class. Be prepared for a lively discussion of the readings and for class activities based upon them.

§ Reading response posted to Web Board (25 percent of grade)

Because this class meets just once a week, it is important to have a venue for students to post responses to readings, class discussions, etc. Web Board is an asynchronous bulletin board that allows for this kind of posting. You should plan to post four (4) substantive responses (each worth 5 percent of the final grade, or 20 points total) during the semester, one every few weeks as listed in the schedule below. You should plan to post three (3) substantive responses (each worth 5 percent of the final grade, or 20 points total) during the semester, one every few weeks as listed in the schedule below.

In these posts you should develop a claim and then critically reflect on the readings and how they relate to the MOO discussion and other scholarly activities (including other classes you are taking, if relevant). These substantive posts should be about three (3) single-spaced pages each.

To sign up for Web Board, go to the following URL, choose a user name and password.

http://wb.engl.ttu.edu/~baake5383

I suggest using account information similar to your eraider account, it makes it easier for other users to find and select accounts.

Each substantive post should include the following:

a) A short introduction of your focus in the response and a strong claim (thesis sentence) that reveals a critical synthesis of the material. Here is an example:

Hart's explication of the literature review process suggests that the reviewer should take an argumentative stance in relation to the literature, yet the examples of literature reviews we have read from our field seem to take an accommodating stance. I will elaborate on this stance to assert that our field of technical communication and rhetoric requires a different discourse register than that considered by Hart for the social sciences.

b) Evidence from the readings, classroom discussions, other coursework that supports your claim. Consider possible rebuttals to your claim. Use in-text citations for material quoted from the readings. If they are readings from our course, you can cite informally (Steehouder, page 15).

c) Conclusion with any remaining questions that you may have about the critique you have offered. Example:

The language in Hart's sample literature reviews that I have cited is more strident than that found in Steehouder and Flower, Hayes, and Swarts. The language of our field seems friendlier, but I wonder if it is as effective at making a point. Also, I wonder if perhaps we write in a friendly way because we are a relatively small field, where one reviewer is likely to know the authors of the articles she is reviewing.

In addition, you should have five (5) short responses to posts from your classmates (each worth 1 point, or 5 points total). At least one of these responses should be to another student's final project, which will be posted to Web Board. These can come at any time you feel inspired to reply. They should be brief (maybe three or four paragraphs) and informal. You can comment on one other student's post or several students' posts, as you see fit. The purpose of these five responses is to keep an informal dialogue going outside of class and to have each of you reading each other's major posts.

An informal post might read like this:

I appreciate the insights that Beth shared in her substantive post because she showed how a literature review is a kind of rhetorical invention process. Although I am not taking the invention class, I learned some ways to use devices of invention in planning a literature review. I like Beth's style and I am impressed with how she seamlessly wove together material from two reading-intensive classes. Etc.....

I do not plan to obsess over grading these posts, which means that if they function as outlined above, you will get the full five points (or one for the informal responses). I will comment on your posts in the Web discussion, but will not give you a grade. Assume full credit unless I tell you in class or by email that you have fallen short.

§ Main research project (Individual* project in several stages, 45 percent).

Each of you will conduct a major research project in several phases. These will include a synthetic review of the literature and formulation of a question, description of your research methods, presentation of results, and discussion. You will also post your project with a summary in Web Board to the class towards the end of the semester. We will build this project in several stages, with each subsequent stage attaching to the one before it.

* I will entertain the possibility of two people sharing a project if it is of a magnitude to benefit from two researchers and provide each with the full research experience.

Due Date	Component	Description
Week 3: Jan. 26	Memo proposing your research (5 percent)	A short memo that tells me what question you would like to research and an early plan of action. Suggested length: 1-2 single-spaced pages
Week 7: Feb. 23	Written review of the literature and formulation of a question (15 percent)	Here you will analyze and synthesize the literature that is relevant to your study, showing what remains to be answered. This will set the stage for your research question. I would expect most reviews to have at least 10 sources, but I will not be counting. As long as you have enough citations to establish your credibility in the specialty area (enough research to show that you know what has been done before), you will be fine. Your literature review should be substantive enough to make the reader share your sense that further study of the type you propose is necessary. Use MLA or APA citation style and include a Works Cited. Suggested length: 5-8 single-spaced pages
Week 9: March 9	Written presentation of methods (10 percent)	Here you will describe your research design. You should choose one research method which you will apply to your question. In addition, you should also suggest an alternative method that could be appropriate (You will not have to do the alternative method, just suggest it). If your primary method is qualitative, suggest an alternative that is quantitative, and vice versa. Suggested length: 3-4 single-spaced pages
Week 16: April 27	Written presentation of results, and discussion (15 percent).	This will come in the form of a final research paper that includes each of the two components above, (but not the memo) revised based on my comments and your further reflection. The main new component of this paper will be the presentation of results and discussion. This paper will have the following sections (Boldface indicates new material): 1) Introduction with question and literature review 2) Methods 3) Results summarized. 4) Discussion of results Length will vary according to whether you have data in tables, etc. Here is a rough guide: In addition to the 8-12 pages that you will import from the earlier stages, I would expect at least 6-8 additional single-spaced pages for the results and discussion. So the whole project will be 14-20 pages, which includes headings, graphics, Works Cited, etc.
Week 16: April 27	Project posted to Web Board	Project with a brief executive summary posted to Web Board and a short, informal discussion in the MOO at the end of the semester.

§ Group discussion and activity leading of a research method (10 percent).

We will consider various research methods in class. Early in the semester you should form into groups of two or three students. Each group will choose from the various research methods and plan to lead the class in a MOO discussion (and an activity if appropriate) after I open the class with initial comments.

See the schedule below of class activities for student-led discussions.

§ Final Exam (10 percent)

This may be a collaborative activity where I give groups a research paper to read and critique. It could also involve short individual answers to questions about the course. We can discuss the exam later in the semester to plan what is best.

Revision Policy

You may revise any written part of the project for a new grade, which I will average in with the original grade. The revision is due within one week of when you receive the paper back. To achieve a major gain in your grade you must carefully read and consider my comments and make substantive changes to improve the writing.

Other Details

§ Submit all written work via email in a single-spaced word-processed document. Submit to ken.baake@ttu.edu. Please put the course number 5363 somewhere in the subject line to help me with organization.

§ Late papers will lose one letter grade per day unless you clear a late submission with me in advance.

§ Email address—I need everyone’s email address by the end of the first week if it is different from that listed on TechSis. If you do not want your email address to be made available to other students, please let me know.

§ Special Needs—Any student who, because of a disability, may require some special arrangements in order to meet course requirements should contact the instructor as soon as possible to make necessary arrangements. Students should present appropriate verification from Disabled Student Services.

§ Observance of a Religious Holy Day. A student will be excused from attending classes or other required activities, including examinations, for the observance of a religious holy day and the time necessary to travel for this observance. The student will not be penalized for the absence and will be permitted to take an exam or complete an assignment missed during the excused absence. The policy applies only to the official holy days of tax-exempt religious institutions. No prior notification of the instructor is required.

Course Reading Schedule

Please read each section before class

Week 1— Jan. 12: Introduction to the course, syllabus, and to each other.

General discussion of research methods with a sample article.

*Due*	*Author and Title*	*Source*	Class Activity
	Baake: 5363 syllabus	Online: This page you are reading now
	Baake: Survival of the Academic Fittest: How to Prepare a Research Proposal	Coursepack (cp) 1
	MacNealy: "Empirical Research in the Humanities	MacNealy: Ch1
	Steehouder: "Author and Reader in Instructions for Use"	cp 2

Week 2—Jan. 19: More general discussion of research methods.

Due	Author and Title	Source	Class Activity
	Berkenkotter, Huckin, and Ackerman: "Conventions, Conversations, and the Writer: Case Study of a Student in a Rhetoric Ph.D. Program"	cp 3	Baake led: Brainstorm class research ideas.
	Rainey: Doctoral Research in Technical, Scientific, and Business Communication, 1989-1998	cp 4
	Flower, Hayes, and Swarts: “Revising Functional Documents: The Scenario Principle.”	cp 5

Week 3—Jan. 26: Doing literature reviews. An example of a historical review and topical review.

Due	Author and Title	Source	Class Activity
Memo proposing your research (5 percent)	MacNealy: "Library Based Research"	MacNealy: Ch 2
	Hart: "The literature review in research," "Reviewing and the research imagination," "Classifying and reading research"	Hart: Chs 1,2, & 3
	Baake: "Metaphor: Constituting or Decorating Theory and Science" (part of Ch. 3 of Metaphor and Knowledge, pp. 42-53)	cp 6

Week 4— Feb. 2: Literature reviews continued. More examples from technical communication and composition.

Due	Author and Title	Source	Class Activity
First Webboard substantial post (5 percent)	Hart: "Organizing and expressing ideas," "Mapping and analyzing ideas," Writing the review."	Hart: Chs. 5,6, & 7
	Williams: "The Implications of Single Sourcing for Technical Communicators"	cp 7
	Murphy: "The Writing Center and Social Constructionist Theory"	cp 8

Week 5—Feb. 9: Empirical Methods Overview, Introduction to Quantitative Research including experimental research.

Due	Author and Title	Source	Class Activity
	MacNealy: "Overview of Empirical Methodology," Concepts Basic to Quantitative Research," Experimental Research."	MacNealy 3,4, 5
	Tan et. al. A Dialogue Technique to Enhance Electronic Communication in Virtual Teams	cp 9
	Kruempel: Making the Right Interactive Moves for Knowledge- Producing Tasks in Computer-Mediated Groups	cp 10

Week 6—Feb. 16: Quantitative Methods continued.

Due	Author and Title	Source	Class Activity
			Student group 1 led
	Wallace and Hayes: "Redefining Revision for Freshmen"	cp 11
	Brumberger: "The Rhetoric of Typography: The Awareness and Impact...	cp 12

Week 7—Feb. 23: Meta Analysis, Usability

Due	Author and Title	Source	Class Activity
Written review of the literature and formulation of a question (15 percent)	MacNealy: "Meta Analysis"	MacNealy: Ch. 6	Student group 2 led
	Grice: "Evaluating the Complete User Experience: Dimensions of Usability" Gurak and Lay, Ch. 8	cp 13
	Zimmerman, Muraski, and Slater: "Taking Usability Testing to the Field."	cp 14

Week 8—March 2: Discourse, text analysis, historical research

Due	Author and Title	Source	Class Activity
	MacNealy: "Discourse or Text Analysis"	MacNealy: Ch. 7	Student group 3 led
	Kynell and Seely: "Historical Methods for Technical Communication" Gurak and Lay, Ch. 4	cp 15
	Baake: "The Giant That Ate El Paso Electric"	cp 16

Week 9—March 9: Surveys, Focus groups

Due

Author and Title

Source

Class Activity

Written presentation of methods (10 percent)

MacNealy: "Surveys," "Focus Groups"

MacNealy: Chs. 8 & 9

Student group 4 led

Elling: "Revising Safety Instructions with Focus Groups"

cp 17

Week 10—March 16 (Spring Break. No Class).

Week 11—March 23: Case studies/Ethnographies

Due	Author and Title	Source	Class Activity
	MacNealy: "Case Study Research," "Ethnography"	MacNealy: Ch. 10 & 11
	McCarthy and Gerring: "Revising Psychiatry's Charter Document DSM-IV"	cp 18

Week 12—March 30—Ethnographies continued

Due

Author and Title

Source

Class Activity

Second Webboard sub