Oh, the responses!

In-class responses and notes for Thursday:

This is a similar type of project that we will be doing--this is far more in-depth, but still important for us to be able to look at

Why did Selzer (1983) want to study the composing processes of an engineer?

He wanted to find out how people in various occupations write, and why they are writing the way they are.  He wanted to study it because it hadn't been studied--if the person was not a writer by trade, he or she had not been studied.  He wanted to study how people arrange and revise texts for teaching technical writing.  He emphasizes "how" the engineers plan, arrange, revise, and write; not exactly "what" they write.  

I think that he also did it because the engineer did not have a writing process that most think of when they hear that term.  Remarks on that will come in later questions.

Which of his finding did I find interesting, surprising, unique, compelling?

• The main finding that astonished me (astonished might be a bit strong) was that the engineer he studied, Nelson, rarely spent time revising.  I spend hours revising, but Nelson spent "less than 5% of his time revising what he had written"; "then he hands a draft to his secretary and then only makes minor edits".  (p. 184)--why? "b/c most people write what comes into their heads and then they correct it later--students are taught to compose like this; but this doesn't normally happen in the workplace; wanted to change the way students were taught, so they would be taught how they would have to work"
  
• "Nelson spends significant time thinking about his audience's needs, interests, kowledge (spends 80% of his time 'inventing' or 'researching')."
  
• "Nelson has the ability to reuse documents; incorporate them into new documents."
  
• last paragraph on 183..."Nelson had stylistic rules that he followed with every document (e.g., short sentence length, topic sentence in every paragraph)"
  

MULTIPLE DATA COLLECTION METHODS

Taped discuss: Nelson responded in detail to questions about his writing sessions, their focus, their length, their conduct

DID NOT ask Nelson to compose aloud

Follow-up Interviews: these were face-to-face with Nelson, prompted by observations that Selzer had

Observe: Selzer went to Nelson's work and observed what was done; how Nelson interacted with co-workers, the surroundings, watched Nelson write

Collection: Selzer collected all of Nelson's documents; notes scribbled, research documents

There were multiple methods because "a lot of writing is unconscious; it cannot be put in words, and can be observed when the person is observed"

Triangulation--Triangulating Data

  I

       /   \

Obs. --Doc.

How did Selzer convince me that he was correct or on target?

He spent hours studying Nelson's strategy.  Selzer took notes, interviewed Nelson at length, and had Nelson tape record the processes he notices that he used.  Selzer said that the way in which Nelson wrote was "almost second-nature"; this made a bit more sense, I felt, with the findings because Selzer was basically doing a character study.

p.182, last full paragraph--Selzer includes phrases that "tell you that Selzer was there with Nelson, saw the projects, collected data from the observations because Selzer was there"

Ethos--credibility of the writer(talk about in 2 weeks); you need to assure the reader that you were there

Pathos--emotional appeal

Exploratory Essay--

What types of questions might you want to discover answers to about the field of PWE?

Why are these questions of interest to you? How might answering these questions help you to achieve or pursue some of your professional goals?

Why might answers to these questions be of interest to others?

Where might you go to find answers to this question: Who might you study? How might you study this person?

What do we know already? (outside research, text-book from another class, websites about PWEs, what's left to learn from what we already know?)

Hypothesize: What kind of answers do you think you might reach?