Comment on the first chapters of Becker. Any surprises?
Think about and share any links you see between this book on writing and the
other stuff we have been doing in class, thus far.
I began thinking about my discipline paper today and started to put some thoughts down on paper. After pulling some old books out on leadership theories and skimming some journal articles, I realized that I had no idea what I was going to write about and how I was going to make sense of this assignment. I was stuck on defining my discipline and struggled to make sense of its history. Becker pointed out in chapter 1 that this “mixed-up draft” is acceptable and a perfectly natural part of the academic writing process. His statement, “[this first draft] is for discovery, not for presentation” (p. 17), I think, aligns well with Dewey’s theory on inquiry. Biesta and Burbules stated that “[inquiry] is simply a natural event. It is only when such a situation is defined as a problematic situation that inquiry begins…”(p. 58). So my problematic situation is my mixed-up draft. I guess I’m doing okay!
Becker writes early on in chapter 2 that “the academic-intellectual world has an ambiguous and uneasy relation to the ordinary world” (p. 33). I think this is very true in education. Towards the end of Chapter 2, Becker reminded me of ongoing discussions we’ve been having in class regarding the separation of practitioners and researchers in education. Becker writes
Just as medical students can only do a few of the things real doctors routinely do, graduate students do not become professionals until they get their Ph.D. degrees. Until then, they can teach as graduate assistants and work on other people’s projects, but will not be taken as seriously as people with degrees (p. 40).
I completely agree with Becker’s comments and think they accurately reflect how most fields exist in academia...except for in education. Professor Stemhagen pointed out last class that in a room full of Chemistry Ph.D. candidates, nearly all have an undergraduate degree in chemistry and most are fresh out of college. Go to a room of Education Ph.D. candidates and you’ll find an array of undergraduate degrees and a wider age range among students. I do not think this is bad thing and in fact, see it as something that separates our field from others...and in a good way. We, unlike those Chemistry graduate students, get experience prior to furthering our education...a notion I think Dewey would probably support and favor as a way of discovering Truth. The tough thing in education is that the separation we see is more dichotomous and more contentious than in medicine or chemistry. Schools of education “do their thing” and teachers and administrators do theirs. The merging of those entities simply does not happen as it should and when it does, the relationships seemed strained. I think it is our responsibility as both doctoral students and practitioners to find ways to ease the tension between academics and practitioners so that real change happens and students benefit.
I enjoyed these first chapter of Becker. Honestly, it might be because it was simplest thing we have had to read and comprehend so far. It is also highly relatable. At the beginning of chapter two Becker recounts a paper that a student wrote about the meaning of the word “classier.” In this paper the student discussed how when people used big words it impressed her and she thought they were highly intelligent. As I was reading this I wondered if this notion of big words equally intellect furthered the divide between practitioners and researchers.
Many articles and journals that researchers publish in are written in a way that practitioners cannot always relate to (at least in my own experience). Teachers are already tight on time and spend their so called “free time” preparing for their students. When they read an article they do not want to look up every other word or try to make sense of the jargon.
These chapters are also highly relatable because of the degree we are all seeking to obtain. With research comes a lot of writing and often, this writing can be a bit outside of our comfort zone (or maybe that’s just me). Dewey’s thoughts on inquiry being sequential and having no absolute end actually reminds me of the writing process. I don’t truly think that we ever reach a “final” draft. I think we simply reach the deadline and must submit something. The more time I spend on a paper or researching something, the more my mind changes or thoughts are gained. I would imagine that the process could continue forever.
For example, I feel as though I am still in the developing stages for my discipline paper. The more I think about it, the more unclear my thoughts are. I am a bit more at ease after reading Becker because it appears as though this is quite normal. I think that the best thing about writing a paper, and even studying for a test, is the act of thinking through a rough draft and creating a study guide. I learn more through those two processes than the class as a whole at times. This is not because the class is poorly done, but because I take the content and actually enter the stage of inquiry. For me, this is my “problematic” situation. As opposed to listening to the material, I start to make sense of it all. I am experiencing the content as opposed to being a bystander.
Becker talks a lot about how he made his students talk about their rituals and fears regardless of they wanted to or not. I think that was a powerful exercise to showcase how fearful students (and people in general) can be when confronted with sharing their writing. It was also a powerful in that it showed students that they were not the only person sitting in class who dreads and hates the writing process. I totally relate to his students’ feelings both academically and professionally. I still hate plopping my written portion of a grant into a shared document for my coworkers to read. I usually feel “less than” even though I have had ample experience writing at this point. I imagine, some of us in this class may react or behave similarly to how the students in Becker’s class did while reviewing each other's papers in a few weeks. It’s very difficult to put yourself out there to be judged but I think Becker’s techniques can alleviate some of the stress and displeasure.
I think Becker’s example of students not wanting to share their readings also relates to our difficulty in discussing the readings too. It’s scary to put yourself out there if you’re uncomfortable with the topi and you may be wrong. I do understand the importance of this act but it is still difficult and will probably remain so.
I appreciated Becker’s candidness about the process of submitting a manuscript for publication. While I have not had much experience in this area many of my coworkers have and they have shared some horror stories. Their experiences reflect what Becker describes. I wonder, if and when the process will get better. Why do reviewers feel the need to criticize so harshly? Asking questions or making comments for clarification seems appropriate whereas criticizing for the sake of criticizing does not.
My response to reading the first chapter of Becker was finally someone had the guts to put into words what I initially thought coming into the doctoral program. When I entered the program, I had many “classy” feelings and thoughts about my writing just like Rosanna. I thought that I needed to use big SAT words to prove why I was in the program. I thought that my writing wasn’t good enough. What I got from the reading was...keep it simple, stop trying to impress people, be confident in your own abilities, and know that you aren't required to get it right the first time.
I liked the reassurance from Becker that the process of scholarly writing often involves numerous rewrites and edits. That takes off the pressure of trying to produce a well written, ready to publish document the first time around. Another important reminder for me was the idea about being okay with sharing your work to get feedback. Writing can be a daunting task and when you feel like you must write in insolation for fear of how you might be judged that adds to the stress of the process. I agree with Becker that each draft is as good as it is in that moment. You share it, make edits and corrections and then it becomes good again.
The two chapters were very relevant and shared my own personal sentiments about writing. I am scared. I am constantly in a place of tension around wanting to be a “good” academic writer and wanting my personal writing style to also be valued. I recognized that a eurocentric style of writing dictates the world of academia. I struggle with my own style which I think is more narrative-like isn’t as easily accepted in academia. I have never been scared to write, but definitely apprehensive about the critique. Since being in my masters program, I have become more open to it and recognize the value in it. I still struggle with how to stomach the feedback and I try to use the input from one piece to the next. One of the challenges the text recognizes is writing in first person which can be described as informal. Well, for me it is natural and is a constant thing to look for when editing. Do we think that the world of academia will transition the way it values formal v. informal writing?
Dewey’s notion of knowledge construction through action can be justified through writing. I do think with critiques and thoughts from others, one can better articulate their own work. It helps to share ideas that might be hard to understand.
I’ve spent the past 8 months thinking a lot about writing. Part of the first months of graduate school seem to be about taking on the identity of a writer. While doing this, one must also write quite a few papers, which doesn’t always leave much time for thinking about how one writes. In addition, I’ve found that I have had to learn an entirely new language. We’ve spent a bit of time in this class talking about the -isms from the Paul article and how these words help us to have a frame of reference as we participate in research. The language that Becker refers to as “classy” in addition to some words that are commonly used in a specific discipline; I’m not sure words like correlation, construct, or discipline fall into that category, but are perhaps just necessary for writing about data. I very much so appreciated Becker’s matter of fact discussion about the actual act of writing. It is a lonely task (me alone with my computer while I write this blog), but also one that allows us to connect our thoughts and understandings (you reading this post). His description of the legal pad, the imposter feelings, and the fear of writing were comforting as I have felt many of those same fears. The fear of wanting the perfect final draft can certainly stop us from wanting to start. While we are quick to talk about problems in research method, we do not share our yucky first drafts with each other or talk about those drafts as part of the identity of being an academic writer.
However, I also felt another tension he did not speak of. Not only do students feel the need to use “classy” language, but professors have a role to help students develop the language and practices of a discipline. I was reminded of Labaree’s article and his desire to help students turn from the practical applications to a more research minded way of thinking. Dewey, Biesta, and Burbules certainly do not model that simplified language is best. While I agree with the idea that we, as writers, should strive to make our writing clear and free from flowery extra academic language, I’m not sure that we have the opportunity to read many examples of this type of writing.
I entered this program believing that writing is neither my strength nor my weakness. I have also been someone who appreciates constructive criticism and I try to learn from my mistakes. However, while reading the first chapters of Becker, I tried to put myself in his students' shoes and see how I would feel if my classmates read and critiqued my writing and gave it back it me full of corrections. I have to admit, I would feel as defensive as his students did. As I reflected more on my thoughts about writing, I do feel like I would look at corrections given by a professor or mentor in a higher regard than a classmate. I don't think this way of thinking is correct. I need to be better at seeking feedback from my peers and thinking about why how they interpreted my writing and if they did not take away from my writing what I wanted them to, then the fault is with me. I need to be a better writer and make sure that there is no other way for readers to interpret my work that what I had intended.
I found it interesting that Becker mentioned writing our thoughts and ideas down first and then providing data when we are writing our papers. I've always thought and also taught that you need to have an idea on what you are writing about and then write and to me in order for me start writing, I need that data. However, I think that academic writing, especially in education, comes together organically, much like Dewey's ideas on inquiry. Dewey's ideas on actions and consequences also relate to those reading and interpreting our written work. If we do not write clearly, the consequences of our actions is misinterpretation of our work.
I thought it was interesting to read something related more to writing than theory. As we continue to hone in our writing skills, I thought it would become easier to push out “drafts” of work. I felt like I am becoming more comfortable with my writing ability. However, Becker emphasizes the idea that writing as a doctoral student is different than that of an undergraduate student in that the first draft is for discovery not presentation. When I read this, I was reflective about my writing process and my writing style. I think my training and style were largely dictated that my writing should follow the style of the leaders in our fields. However, it was a long hard process understanding the language and writing and I am still learning. Becker’s description of the students frustrations, mistakes, solutions, and the eventual coming together of their community, resonates with me in some ways.
As I read through the first chapters of Becker’s text, I couldn’t shake the eerie feeling that he had somehow crept into my home and had watched and recorded my writing habits. Whenever I approach longer writing assignments, I am very ritualistic-- I usually write in the evenings, in isolation, with my television volume set to 38 percent and at least one window is propped open (typically in the living room). As a high school, collegiate, and short-lived professional journalist, I believed the successes of my writing depended on those rituals. I would caution to say that I adopted these rituals out of fear of receiving criticism of my work because nearly all of my editors were unforgiving in their critiques and I knew at least three sets of eyes would see my work before it’d be deemed “final”. I think the adoption of writing rituals aid the creative process. Some writers believe they produce better content under X conditions whereas others think the conditions of Y are what contribute to the process. Personally, I feel frustrated when I write in spaces with a lot of background noise and foot traffic.
While I disagree with Becker’s notion that writing rituals are signs of writers’ insecurities, I felt a strong connection to nearly everything else he wrote. One of the ideas that resonated most deeply with me was that of “classy writing” and persona as vehicles to increase writer credibility. The appearance of ultimate authority certainly helps writers and researchers establish more credibility in their fields but, the overuse of elevated language is a form of literary classism that keeps certain populations of people on the fringes of academia.
I’ve always considered myself a well-spoken and well-written person (barring punctuation because that has always been a struggle) but more often than not, when I sit in classrooms now or read text from prominent scholars a serious case of imposter syndrome sets in. There have been times when I’ve read works with a great number of -isms and theories and all the other things writers add to their prose and my head starts spinning. The often excessively elevated writing causes me to question to whom is the writing directed? The inaccessibility of scholarly texts may be the reason so many teachers shy away from using research-based practices in their practice-- THEY DON’T UNDERSTAND IT! Additionally, a lot of the texts tend to be verbose and dull (even if it is field/ interest related).
Perhaps my biggest struggle with the transition to more scholarly writing is rooted in my journalistic past. I was trained to be concise and to produce content that could be accessed by advanced secondary students. As Becker suggested, writers needn’t use 20 words to communicate something that could be said in five words. My professional desire is to write for teachers, to bridge the gap between what the ubiquitous “they” or “researchers” suggest and the actions of everyday practitioners; I hope more and more researchers begin to approach their work with this mindset.
Writing, for me, has always been something that I haven't felt is one of my strengths. I always remember hearing, you write like you talk? Or it feels like a stream of consciousness? And I never knew how to completely break those habits. I have always felt that I needed to continue to evaluate my writing and push myself to improve.
I do feel as though there is room for improvement for me, but the first chapter in Writing for Social Scientists confirmed that as students we all have different writing processes and we also don't need to over-think our process. We have rituals that help us set the stage or become more comfortable in our environments to write and those rituals are not right or wrong, they are unique to everyone. We have to remember to do what is right for us and what makes sense for us. It can be so easy to get wrapped up asking what everyone else is doing and comparing ourselves with others. I know this isn't a scholarly statement but sometimes you just have to "do you," and what makes sense for you, personally, to be successful. However, I did take in to account Becker's notion of utilizing our community. We need to lean on one another for feedback and guidance. Not as a way to bring each other down but to truly help one another. Simplicity is also key. It's interesting to think about his example on how much was cut out from a paper after it was reviewed. Oftentimes we do repeat ourselves or provide "fluff" that truly isn't necessary. The idea of a paper length gets in our way versus the idea that once we have made our point and provided thorough justification, we could stop there. I think about how in our class Dr. Stemhagen wants us to trust the process or he wants us to utilize him if we feel like we may be headed in a different direction for our papers than was intended but how that might be okay. Writing isn't a "one size fits all" model and we have to remember to communicate and embrace what works for us.
I enjoyed reading the first two chapters of Becker because I can relate to it. I was able to identify with my own personal experiences while Becker described other student experiences. I never really thought of myself as having a ritual before writing a picture. However, I can definitely agree with Becker that writing is a process and writers can form habits quickly. In my undergraduate studies, the writing process was much easier because there were term papers that could be done quickly, and rough drafts and revisions weren’t really needed. Now, I am in a doctoral program where the writing process is much different. I find myself struggling with using the appropriate language and not adding all the “class” to the paper. To me, having bigger words made the paper sound better and like I was more knowledgeable, so it was a norm. Also, I struggle when I hear the professor say “peer-review” because I feel like my paper will be laughed at or that I did not write well enough. This chapter really helped me in knowing that I was not the only one who felt this way.
In class, we are put in groups with unfamiliar people and have to share our thoughts and such (I am not saying this is bad by any means). I feel that some people (including myself) are apprehensive because there is a level of being uncomfortable and not wanting to be “laughed” at or critiqued.
The first chapters of Becker were unexpectedly enjoyable to read. The canoe building example in the first chapter reminded me of Dewey’s view on knowledge and how things are not truly known or validated without experience/action. Becker dispelled the belief that experts effortlessly produced complete and unchangeable outcomes on their first attempt. Everyone should check and re-check the products of their labor. As Dewey proclaimed, knowledge should never be viewed as complete and final. There is always more that can be done to improve knowledge and products of that knowledge as time progresses.
Becker also made the reason for a research proposal paper more clear. It is assumed, without the proper guidance, that one must research information (review literature) and take notes on it. However, I learned early on that a research proposal, which includes a literature review, is the very first thing you want to prepare and to do so formally. “If you start writing early in your research you can begin cleaning up your thinking sooner. Writing a draft without data makes clearer what you would like to discuss and, therefore, what data you will have to get” (Becker, 2007, pp. 17-18). The literature review portion helps in showing the issue, what others have done with regard to the issue, the gaps that need to be filled in the literature, and ultimately what needs to be done in the future.
I am also relieved that it is normal to read publications and feel like it is partially written in a foreign language. I am happy to know that there are experts who understand the feeling and press for more clarity with less jargon.
Generally speaking, most of what Becker details in regards to challenges for “new” writers could’ve been written directly towards me! (see- right there is a great example of using too many words ). My self-refection yielded a habit from teaching young students whose attention I was always fighting for: repetition: As a teacher, I always said everything- directions, academic processes, compliments TWICE. From start to finish, I would literally repeat and say everything two ties to increase the chances that my students would hear me and follow. Often, I would the rephrase THE SAME THING a third time, to try to differentiate myself in an effort to grab those few stragglers that I didn’t get the first couple of times around. Not the best strategy for writing, I’m learning… I differ in the anecdotes included in Chapter 1 regarding peer editing- I have gotten a lot of experience with this in one particular course this semester and I am finding it to be tremendously valuable. I look forward to hearing what others think and sharing my feedback. I put a lot of effort into the process and think critically about how to be constructive but also motivating. In Chapter 2, the principle of hierarchy really resonated with me. I often assume that if I can’t understand an author’s point, it’s because I just don’t get it. I’m recognizing that writing for an audience bears some responsibility for the author and that if the intention is to spread your message, careful consideration of the audience is essential. I can feel my confidence growing in terms of writing- especially when I read the results from a study and can see where specific choices either lead to greater understanding or intrigue….fine line. I wished that there was more discussion about being so connected with a piece that you can’t get “unconnected” and see it with fresh eyes (maybe this will come later or I missed it). I find that you can’t ever go back a read a paper for the first time again, which is why I’m loving the feedback I get from the peer review process. Besides putting it aside for a minute- I could benefit from some strategies to disconnect and read a piece again as an uninformed reader who doesn’t know the ending. Kind of like watching your favorite movie again for the first time. Often, I’ve spent so much time with text that I’ve written that I get bored or lazy. Tell me I’m not the only one?
I was engaged and amused by chapters 1 & 2 in the Becker text. I found the discussion of writing rituals entertaining and personally relevant. (I am known to clean my whole house before writing a paper.) Becker gave concrete examples on editing for clarity, being concise, and reminders on avoiding passive constructions. Becker’s candid writing style made me feel less alone. In another course I’m taking, we recently discussed “imposter syndrome” which related to Becker getting to the bottom of students’ fear of how their writing might be perceived, and common avoidance behaviors to insure a product was viewed as “unfinished.” Parts of the first two chapters reminded me of the ways we’ve discussed Dewey in class, as having a general view of doing the best we can in the moment, knowing that things will change in the future. This concept seems compatible with Becker’s thoughts on drafting and recognizing writing as a true work in progress. The extended example of Rosanna’s ideas of “classy” language forced me to consider the importance of clarity and humility. A welcome reminder that both clarity and humility are more valuable than superfluous language. Overall, the first chapters were helpful and comforting. I distilled the core meaning to be that there is no shame in a messy first draft, and it is always better to just start writing today.
I really enjoyed the Becker chapters because it really spoke to what I think I'm experiencing with writing as a doc student. I definitely feel like I've still been stuck in that undergraduate way of working when it comes to writing papers (writing at the last minute with no editing or rewriting). I definitely identify with struggling to find/carve out my voice/persona vs. the academic, "classy" way of writing. I think that as we work to become academics, it feels as though we have to figure out all the ways to be the ideal "academic." In actuality, there are many different ways to be an academic and be valued for what you know, write, and do. This really connects to the Biesta and Burbles chapter this week as they talk about Dewey's insistence on the connection between the intellectual and the social. It also makes me think about the connection between practice and theory and how there are not just separate entities where one leads to the other. They are interconnected and inform each other. This connects to Dewey's notion of intersubjectivity, where our knowledge is constructed on the individual as well as larger social contexts.
This text is interesting because I don't see any connections between this text and Biesta and Burbules at all. Honestly, I don't consider formal writing texts until I'm able to tie down my own ideas for any paper, manuscript, or abstract that I'm writing. So, if I were to compare the process of inquiry and knowledge proposed by Dewey compared to Becker, I would just have to laugh. I am more casual and all over the place with my writing, and Becker's narratives make that process feel more normative in my view, and honestly make me more comfortable in my style.
I found Chapters 1 and 2 in Becker very enjoyable and humorous. I read both chapters in the time it usually takes me to read just a small portion of Biesta and Burbules and only reached for my dictionary once! I thought the ideas and projects Becker had his students think about and participate in were excellent vehicles to activate their inner-author. I think he put them at ease and alleviated a lot of pressure as they began to write for his class (after, of course, they entered into their revered ritual). Last semester, I was involved in a Mathematics Processes Writing Project with a colleague. During the first week, we wrote about a classroom lesson (or in our case, a collection of lessons). The assignment for each week that followed was to revisit our original writing with a new focus (sometimes from a different point of view, sometimes with a change of audience, etc.) During this process, I rewrote my paper twelve times and allowed my partner to edit and suggest revisions each time. I in turn, edited and suggested revisions to her work. Although it was not nearly as “classy” as the writings I suspect I will be tasked with in the doctoral program, it did teach me a lot about what is means to examine my writing and my colleagues writing through a variety of different lenses. The result was my being a better writer of classroom narratives. I would have thought this process would have made starting my discipline paper easier, but I find myself experiencing much of the same angst I felt when making my writing public last semester. I heard many of my feelings expressed by students in Becker’s class. His responses to these made me relax, just a little, as I began writing a rough of my paper. I do that it will be revised many, many, many times. I think Dewey would have agreed with many of Becker’s ideas. Becker seemed to rail against the idea that people sometimes frame their ideas in ambiguous and nebulous ways so that they cannot be accused of taking a stand someone would later argue against. Becker says, “we write that way because we fear that others will catch us in obvious errors if we do anything else” (Becker, p. 8). I think Dewey would find these occasions inevitable. Dewey suggests, “things are what they are experienced as. There is no reason for assuming that the content of only one of them can be real and that the experiences of others must necessarily be any less accurate or real . . . what we have are different reals of experience” (Biesta & Burbules, p. 43).
I began thinking about my discipline paper today and started to put some thoughts down on paper. After pulling some old books out on leadership theories and skimming some journal articles, I realized that I had no idea what I was going to write about and how I was going to make sense of this assignment. I was stuck on defining my discipline and struggled to make sense of its history. Becker pointed out in chapter 1 that this “mixed-up draft” is acceptable and a perfectly natural part of the academic writing process. His statement, “[this first draft] is for discovery, not for presentation” (p. 17), I think, aligns well with Dewey’s theory on inquiry. Biesta and Burbules stated that “[inquiry] is simply a natural event. It is only when such a situation is defined as a problematic situation that inquiry begins…”(p. 58). So my problematic situation is my mixed-up draft. I guess I’m doing okay!
ReplyDeleteBecker writes early on in chapter 2 that “the academic-intellectual world has an ambiguous and uneasy relation to the ordinary world” (p. 33). I think this is very true in education. Towards the end of Chapter 2, Becker reminded me of ongoing discussions we’ve been having in class regarding the separation of practitioners and researchers in education. Becker writes
Just as medical students can only do a few of the things real doctors routinely do, graduate students do not become professionals until they get their Ph.D. degrees. Until then, they can teach as graduate assistants and work on other people’s projects, but will not be taken as seriously as people with degrees (p. 40).
I completely agree with Becker’s comments and think they accurately reflect how most fields exist in academia...except for in education. Professor Stemhagen pointed out last class that in a room full of Chemistry Ph.D. candidates, nearly all have an undergraduate degree in chemistry and most are fresh out of college. Go to a room of Education Ph.D. candidates and you’ll find an array of undergraduate degrees and a wider age range among students. I do not think this is bad thing and in fact, see it as something that separates our field from others...and in a good way. We, unlike those Chemistry graduate students, get experience prior to furthering our education...a notion I think Dewey would probably support and favor as a way of discovering Truth. The tough thing in education is that the separation we see is more dichotomous and more contentious than in medicine or chemistry. Schools of education “do their thing” and teachers and administrators do theirs. The merging of those entities simply does not happen as it should and when it does, the relationships seemed strained. I think it is our responsibility as both doctoral students and practitioners to find ways to ease the tension between academics and practitioners so that real change happens and students benefit.
I enjoyed these first chapter of Becker. Honestly, it might be because it was simplest thing we have had to read and comprehend so far. It is also highly relatable. At the beginning of chapter two Becker recounts a paper that a student wrote about the meaning of the word “classier.” In this paper the student discussed how when people used big words it impressed her and she thought they were highly intelligent. As I was reading this I wondered if this notion of big words equally intellect furthered the divide between practitioners and researchers.
ReplyDeleteMany articles and journals that researchers publish in are written in a way that practitioners cannot always relate to (at least in my own experience). Teachers are already tight on time and spend their so called “free time” preparing for their students. When they read an article they do not want to look up every other word or try to make sense of the jargon.
These chapters are also highly relatable because of the degree we are all seeking to obtain. With research comes a lot of writing and often, this writing can be a bit outside of our comfort zone (or maybe that’s just me). Dewey’s thoughts on inquiry being sequential and having no absolute end actually reminds me of the writing process. I don’t truly think that we ever reach a “final” draft. I think we simply reach the deadline and must submit something. The more time I spend on a paper or researching something, the more my mind changes or thoughts are gained. I would imagine that the process could continue forever.
For example, I feel as though I am still in the developing stages for my discipline paper. The more I think about it, the more unclear my thoughts are. I am a bit more at ease after reading Becker because it appears as though this is quite normal. I think that the best thing about writing a paper, and even studying for a test, is the act of thinking through a rough draft and creating a study guide. I learn more through those two processes than the class as a whole at times. This is not because the class is poorly done, but because I take the content and actually enter the stage of inquiry. For me, this is my “problematic” situation. As opposed to listening to the material, I start to make sense of it all. I am experiencing the content as opposed to being a bystander.
Becker talks a lot about how he made his students talk about their rituals and fears regardless of they wanted to or not. I think that was a powerful exercise to showcase how fearful students (and people in general) can be when confronted with sharing their writing. It was also a powerful in that it showed students that they were not the only person sitting in class who dreads and hates the writing process. I totally relate to his students’ feelings both academically and professionally. I still hate plopping my written portion of a grant into a shared document for my coworkers to read. I usually feel “less than” even though I have had ample experience writing at this point. I imagine, some of us in this class may react or behave similarly to how the students in Becker’s class did while reviewing each other's papers in a few weeks. It’s very difficult to put yourself out there to be judged but I think Becker’s techniques can alleviate some of the stress and displeasure.
ReplyDeleteI think Becker’s example of students not wanting to share their readings also relates to our difficulty in discussing the readings too. It’s scary to put yourself out there if you’re uncomfortable with the topi and you may be wrong. I do understand the importance of this act but it is still difficult and will probably remain so.
I appreciated Becker’s candidness about the process of submitting a manuscript for publication. While I have not had much experience in this area many of my coworkers have and they have shared some horror stories. Their experiences reflect what Becker describes. I wonder, if and when the process will get better. Why do reviewers feel the need to criticize so harshly? Asking questions or making comments for clarification seems appropriate whereas criticizing for the sake of criticizing does not.
My response to reading the first chapter of Becker was finally someone had the guts to put into words what I initially thought coming into the doctoral program. When I entered the program, I had many “classy” feelings and thoughts about my writing just like Rosanna. I thought that I needed to use big SAT words to prove why I was in the program. I thought that my writing wasn’t good enough. What I got from the reading was...keep it simple, stop trying to impress people, be confident in your own abilities, and know that you aren't required to get it right the first time.
ReplyDeleteI liked the reassurance from Becker that the process of scholarly writing often involves numerous rewrites and edits. That takes off the pressure of trying to produce a well written, ready to publish document the first time around. Another important reminder for me was the idea about being okay with sharing your work to get feedback. Writing can be a daunting task and when you feel like you must write in insolation for fear of how you might be judged that adds to the stress of the process. I agree with Becker that each draft is as good as it is in that moment. You share it, make edits and corrections and then it becomes good again.
Writing is a process.
ReplyDeleteThe two chapters were very relevant and shared my own personal sentiments about writing. I am scared. I am constantly in a place of tension around wanting to be a “good” academic writer and wanting my personal writing style to also be valued. I recognized that a eurocentric style of writing dictates the world of academia. I struggle with my own style which I think is more narrative-like isn’t as easily accepted in academia. I have never been scared to write, but definitely apprehensive about the critique. Since being in my masters program, I have become more open to it and recognize the value in it. I still struggle with how to stomach the feedback and I try to use the input from one piece to the next. One of the challenges the text recognizes is writing in first person which can be described as informal. Well, for me it is natural and is a constant thing to look for when editing. Do we think that the world of academia will transition the way it values formal v. informal writing?
Dewey’s notion of knowledge construction through action can be justified through writing. I do think with critiques and thoughts from others, one can better articulate their own work. It helps to share ideas that might be hard to understand.
I’ve spent the past 8 months thinking a lot about writing. Part of the first months of graduate school seem to be about taking on the identity of a writer. While doing this, one must also write quite a few papers, which doesn’t always leave much time for thinking about how one writes. In addition, I’ve found that I have had to learn an entirely new language. We’ve spent a bit of time in this class talking about the -isms from the Paul article and how these words help us to have a frame of reference as we participate in research. The language that Becker refers to as “classy” in addition to some words that are commonly used in a specific discipline; I’m not sure words like correlation, construct, or discipline fall into that category, but are perhaps just necessary for writing about data. I very much so appreciated Becker’s matter of fact discussion about the actual act of writing. It is a lonely task (me alone with my computer while I write this blog), but also one that allows us to connect our thoughts and understandings (you reading this post). His description of the legal pad, the imposter feelings, and the fear of writing were comforting as I have felt many of those same fears. The fear of wanting the perfect final draft can certainly stop us from wanting to start. While we are quick to talk about problems in research method, we do not share our yucky first drafts with each other or talk about those drafts as part of the identity of being an academic writer.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I also felt another tension he did not speak of. Not only do students feel the need to use “classy” language, but professors have a role to help students develop the language and practices of a discipline. I was reminded of Labaree’s article and his desire to help students turn from the practical applications to a more research minded way of thinking. Dewey, Biesta, and Burbules certainly do not model that simplified language is best. While I agree with the idea that we, as writers, should strive to make our writing clear and free from flowery extra academic language, I’m not sure that we have the opportunity to read many examples of this type of writing.
I entered this program believing that writing is neither my strength nor my weakness. I have also been someone who appreciates constructive criticism and I try to learn from my mistakes. However, while reading the first chapters of Becker, I tried to put myself in his students' shoes and see how I would feel if my classmates read and critiqued my writing and gave it back it me full of corrections. I have to admit, I would feel as defensive as his students did. As I reflected more on my thoughts about writing, I do feel like I would look at corrections given by a professor or mentor in a higher regard than a classmate. I don't think this way of thinking is correct. I need to be better at seeking feedback from my peers and thinking about why how they interpreted my writing and if they did not take away from my writing what I wanted them to, then the fault is with me. I need to be a better writer and make sure that there is no other way for readers to interpret my work that what I had intended.
ReplyDeleteI found it interesting that Becker mentioned writing our thoughts and ideas down first and then providing data when we are writing our papers. I've always thought and also taught that you need to have an idea on what you are writing about and then write and to me in order for me start writing, I need that data. However, I think that academic writing, especially in education, comes together organically, much like Dewey's ideas on inquiry. Dewey's ideas on actions and consequences also relate to those reading and interpreting our written work. If we do not write clearly, the consequences of our actions is misinterpretation of our work.
I thought it was interesting to read something related more to writing than theory. As we continue to hone in our writing skills, I thought it would become easier to push out “drafts” of work. I felt like I am becoming more comfortable with my writing ability. However, Becker emphasizes the idea that writing as a doctoral student is different than that of an undergraduate student in that the first draft is for discovery not presentation. When I read this, I was reflective about my writing process and my writing style. I think my training and style were largely dictated that my writing should follow the style of the leaders in our fields. However, it was a long hard process understanding the language and writing and I am still learning. Becker’s description of the students frustrations, mistakes, solutions, and the eventual coming together of their community, resonates with me in some ways.
ReplyDeleteAs I read through the first chapters of Becker’s text, I couldn’t shake the eerie feeling that he had somehow crept into my home and had watched and recorded my writing habits. Whenever I approach longer writing assignments, I am very ritualistic-- I usually write in the evenings, in isolation, with my television volume set to 38 percent and at least one window is propped open (typically in the living room). As a high school, collegiate, and short-lived professional journalist, I believed the successes of my writing depended on those rituals. I would caution to say that I adopted these rituals out of fear of receiving criticism of my work because nearly all of my editors were unforgiving in their critiques and I knew at least three sets of eyes would see my work before it’d be deemed “final”. I think the adoption of writing rituals aid the creative process. Some writers believe they produce better content under X conditions whereas others think the conditions of Y are what contribute to the process. Personally, I feel frustrated when I write in spaces with a lot of background noise and foot traffic.
ReplyDeleteWhile I disagree with Becker’s notion that writing rituals are signs of writers’ insecurities, I felt a strong connection to nearly everything else he wrote. One of the ideas that resonated most deeply with me was that of “classy writing” and persona as vehicles to increase writer credibility. The appearance of ultimate authority certainly helps writers and researchers establish more credibility in their fields but, the overuse of elevated language is a form of literary classism that keeps certain populations of people on the fringes of academia.
I’ve always considered myself a well-spoken and well-written person (barring punctuation because that has always been a struggle) but more often than not, when I sit in classrooms now or read text from prominent scholars a serious case of imposter syndrome sets in. There have been times when I’ve read works with a great number of -isms and theories and all the other things writers add to their prose and my head starts spinning. The often excessively elevated writing causes me to question to whom is the writing directed? The inaccessibility of scholarly texts may be the reason so many teachers shy away from using research-based practices in their practice-- THEY DON’T UNDERSTAND IT! Additionally, a lot of the texts tend to be verbose and dull (even if it is field/ interest related).
Perhaps my biggest struggle with the transition to more scholarly writing is rooted in my journalistic past. I was trained to be concise and to produce content that could be accessed by advanced secondary students. As Becker suggested, writers needn’t use 20 words to communicate something that could be said in five words. My professional desire is to write for teachers, to bridge the gap between what the ubiquitous “they” or “researchers” suggest and the actions of everyday practitioners; I hope more and more researchers begin to approach their work with this mindset.
Writing, for me, has always been something that I haven't felt is one of my strengths. I always remember hearing, you write like you talk? Or it feels like a stream of consciousness? And I never knew how to completely break those habits. I have always felt that I needed to continue to evaluate my writing and push myself to improve.
ReplyDeleteI do feel as though there is room for improvement for me, but the first chapter in Writing for Social Scientists confirmed that as students we all have different writing processes and we also don't need to over-think our process. We have rituals that help us set the stage or become more comfortable in our environments to write and those rituals are not right or wrong, they are unique to everyone. We have to remember to do what is right for us and what makes sense for us. It can be so easy to get wrapped up asking what everyone else is doing and comparing ourselves with others. I know this isn't a scholarly statement but sometimes you just have to "do you," and what makes sense for you, personally, to be successful. However, I did take in to account Becker's notion of utilizing our community. We need to lean on one another for feedback and guidance. Not as a way to bring each other down but to truly help one another. Simplicity is also key. It's interesting to think about his example on how much was cut out from a paper after it was reviewed. Oftentimes we do repeat ourselves or provide "fluff" that truly isn't necessary. The idea of a paper length gets in our way versus the idea that once we have made our point and provided thorough justification, we could stop there. I think about how in our class Dr. Stemhagen wants us to trust the process or he wants us to utilize him if we feel like we may be headed in a different direction for our papers than was intended but how that might be okay. Writing isn't a "one size fits all" model and we have to remember to communicate and embrace what works for us.
I enjoyed reading the first two chapters of Becker because I can relate to it. I was able to identify with my own personal experiences while Becker described other student experiences. I never really thought of myself as having a ritual before writing a picture. However, I can definitely agree with Becker that writing is a process and writers can form habits quickly. In my undergraduate studies, the writing process was much easier because there were term papers that could be done quickly, and rough drafts and revisions weren’t really needed. Now, I am in a doctoral program where the writing process is much different. I find myself struggling with using the appropriate language and not adding all the “class” to the paper. To me, having bigger words made the paper sound better and like I was more knowledgeable, so it was a norm. Also, I struggle when I hear the professor say “peer-review” because I feel like my paper will be laughed at or that I did not write well enough. This chapter really helped me in knowing that I was not the only one who felt this way.
ReplyDeleteIn class, we are put in groups with unfamiliar people and have to share our thoughts and such (I am not saying this is bad by any means). I feel that some people (including myself) are apprehensive because there is a level of being uncomfortable and not wanting to be “laughed” at or critiqued.
The first chapters of Becker were unexpectedly enjoyable to read. The canoe building example in the first chapter reminded me of Dewey’s view on knowledge and how things are not truly known or validated without experience/action. Becker dispelled the belief that experts effortlessly produced complete and unchangeable outcomes on their first attempt. Everyone should check and re-check the products of their labor. As Dewey proclaimed, knowledge should never be viewed as complete and final. There is always more that can be done to improve knowledge and products of that knowledge as time progresses.
ReplyDeleteBecker also made the reason for a research proposal paper more clear. It is assumed, without the proper guidance, that one must research information (review literature) and take notes on it. However, I learned early on that a research proposal, which includes a literature review, is the very first thing you want to prepare and to do so formally. “If you start writing early in your research you can begin cleaning up your thinking sooner. Writing a draft without data makes clearer what you would like to discuss and, therefore, what data you will have to get” (Becker, 2007, pp. 17-18). The literature review portion helps in showing the issue, what others have done with regard to the issue, the gaps that need to be filled in the literature, and ultimately what needs to be done in the future.
I am also relieved that it is normal to read publications and feel like it is partially written in a foreign language. I am happy to know that there are experts who understand the feeling and press for more clarity with less jargon.
Generally speaking, most of what Becker details in regards to challenges for “new” writers could’ve been written directly towards me! (see- right there is a great example of using too many words ). My self-refection yielded a habit from teaching young students whose attention I was always fighting for: repetition: As a teacher, I always said everything- directions, academic processes, compliments TWICE. From start to finish, I would literally repeat and say everything two ties to increase the chances that my students would hear me and follow. Often, I would the rephrase THE SAME THING a third time, to try to differentiate myself in an effort to grab those few stragglers that I didn’t get the first couple of times around. Not the best strategy for writing, I’m learning…
ReplyDeleteI differ in the anecdotes included in Chapter 1 regarding peer editing- I have gotten a lot of experience with this in one particular course this semester and I am finding it to be tremendously valuable. I look forward to hearing what others think and sharing my feedback. I put a lot of effort into the process and think critically about how to be constructive but also motivating. In Chapter 2, the principle of hierarchy really resonated with me. I often assume that if I can’t understand an author’s point, it’s because I just don’t get it. I’m recognizing that writing for an audience bears some responsibility for the author and that if the intention is to spread your message, careful consideration of the audience is essential. I can feel my confidence growing in terms of writing- especially when I read the results from a study and can see where specific choices either lead to greater understanding or intrigue….fine line.
I wished that there was more discussion about being so connected with a piece that you can’t get “unconnected” and see it with fresh eyes (maybe this will come later or I missed it). I find that you can’t ever go back a read a paper for the first time again, which is why I’m loving the feedback I get from the peer review process. Besides putting it aside for a minute- I could benefit from some strategies to disconnect and read a piece again as an uninformed reader who doesn’t know the ending. Kind of like watching your favorite movie again for the first time. Often, I’ve spent so much time with text that I’ve written that I get bored or lazy. Tell me I’m not the only one?
I was engaged and amused by chapters 1 & 2 in the Becker text. I found the discussion of writing rituals entertaining and personally relevant. (I am known to clean my whole house before writing a paper.) Becker gave concrete examples on editing for clarity, being concise, and reminders on avoiding passive constructions. Becker’s candid writing style made me feel less alone. In another course I’m taking, we recently discussed “imposter syndrome” which related to Becker getting to the bottom of students’ fear of how their writing might be perceived, and common avoidance behaviors to insure a product was viewed as “unfinished.” Parts of the first two chapters reminded me of the ways we’ve discussed Dewey in class, as having a general view of doing the best we can in the moment, knowing that things will change in the future. This concept seems compatible with Becker’s thoughts on drafting and recognizing writing as a true work in progress. The extended example of Rosanna’s ideas of “classy” language forced me to consider the importance of clarity and humility. A welcome reminder that both clarity and humility are more valuable than superfluous language. Overall, the first chapters were helpful and comforting. I distilled the core meaning to be that there is no shame in a messy first draft, and it is always better to just start writing today.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed the Becker chapters because it really spoke to what I think I'm experiencing with writing as a doc student. I definitely feel like I've still been stuck in that undergraduate way of working when it comes to writing papers (writing at the last minute with no editing or rewriting). I definitely identify with struggling to find/carve out my voice/persona vs. the academic, "classy" way of writing. I think that as we work to become academics, it feels as though we have to figure out all the ways to be the ideal "academic." In actuality, there are many different ways to be an academic and be valued for what you know, write, and do. This really connects to the Biesta and Burbles chapter this week as they talk about Dewey's insistence on the connection between the intellectual and the social. It also makes me think about the connection between practice and theory and how there are not just separate entities where one leads to the other. They are interconnected and inform each other. This connects to Dewey's notion of intersubjectivity, where our knowledge is constructed on the individual as well as larger social contexts.
ReplyDeleteThis text is interesting because I don't see any connections between this text and Biesta and Burbules at all. Honestly, I don't consider formal writing texts until I'm able to tie down my own ideas for any paper, manuscript, or abstract that I'm writing. So, if I were to compare the process of inquiry and knowledge proposed by Dewey compared to Becker, I would just have to laugh. I am more casual and all over the place with my writing, and Becker's narratives make that process feel more normative in my view, and honestly make me more comfortable in my style.
ReplyDeleteI found Chapters 1 and 2 in Becker very enjoyable and humorous. I read both chapters in the time it usually takes me to read just a small portion of Biesta and Burbules and only reached for my dictionary once! I thought the ideas and projects Becker had his students think about and participate in were excellent vehicles to activate their inner-author. I think he put them at ease and alleviated a lot of pressure as they began to write for his class (after, of course, they entered into their revered ritual).
ReplyDeleteLast semester, I was involved in a Mathematics Processes Writing Project with a colleague. During the first week, we wrote about a classroom lesson (or in our case, a collection of lessons). The assignment for each week that followed was to revisit our original writing with a new focus (sometimes from a different point of view, sometimes with a change of audience, etc.) During this process, I rewrote my paper twelve times and allowed my partner to edit and suggest revisions each time. I in turn, edited and suggested revisions to her work. Although it was not nearly as “classy” as the writings I suspect I will be tasked with in the doctoral program, it did teach me a lot about what is means to examine my writing and my colleagues writing through a variety of different lenses. The result was my being a better writer of classroom narratives.
I would have thought this process would have made starting my discipline paper easier, but I find myself experiencing much of the same angst I felt when making my writing public last semester. I heard many of my feelings expressed by students in Becker’s class. His responses to these made me relax, just a little, as I began writing a rough of my paper. I do that it will be revised many, many, many times.
I think Dewey would have agreed with many of Becker’s ideas. Becker seemed to rail against the idea that people sometimes frame their ideas in ambiguous and nebulous ways so that they cannot be accused of taking a stand someone would later argue against. Becker says, “we write that way because we fear that others will catch us in obvious errors if we do anything else” (Becker, p. 8). I think Dewey would find these occasions inevitable. Dewey suggests, “things are what they are experienced as. There is no reason for assuming that the content of only one of them can be real and that the experiences of others must necessarily be any less accurate or real . . . what we have are different reals of experience” (Biesta & Burbules, p. 43).