Blog 16

Lead: The purpose of this interview is to determine what causes a person to like or dislike a movie adaptation of a book.

Questions:
Did you read the book?
Did you see the movie?
Which did you experience first?
What did you like about the book?
What did you like about the movie?
What did you dislike about the movie?
What did you dislike about the book?
How accurate do you think the movie adaptation was?
Was there something in the book the movie excluded? Did you like or dislike that?
Was there something the movie added that wasn't in the book? Did you like or dislike that?
Why did you like or dislike any differences between the book and movie?

Blog 15

1.  What age were you when it happened?
     "12, or so. I think I was in 8th grade."
2. How did you react?
    "I was in school, the teachers turned on TV's  in classrooms...I was in social studies class but I wasn't very      concerned... I didn't understand what was happening. They moved us into gym."
3. What did you do after school?
    "I just went home after school."
4. How did your family react?
   "My family didn't really seem to react...we didn't know anybody who would be in NY, so there was no reason for us to be worried. I'm sure they were upset but they seemed normal to me."

Blog 14

Devon Yanvary

3/18/2013

Dr. Chandler

Good Interviews Gone Bad

     Interviews are one of the classic ways of gathering information. As the name suggests, interviews provide a person’s view on a topic, their personal stance and any insight they may possess. With such a beneficial tool available, why wouldn’t every researcher make use of interviews? Simply put, interviewees are not always a source of quality information. There are many factors that can contort an interviewee’s responses. Both participants possess the potential to skew the results. Interviewers can use unclear wording, leading, and implying that there is a ‘correct,’ or expected answer and can influence how successful an interview actually is. In addition to these factors, interviewees can give unclear or incomplete responses, be unprofessional, or let the desire to project a certain image of them change their responses. With so many obstacles, is it possible to make good use of a bad interview? By looking at the interview entitled “Adult Learner and New Literacies,” we will see how an interviewee’s casual language use can deteriorate the quality of their answer. Furthermore we will determine if the interviewer can still use the information gathered during the interview, despite any faulty answers, and how.

     Categories for this interview include “indecisive” and “unprofessional.” These categories are based off of M’s mannerisms and generally short or circular ways of speaking. Codes constituting these categories will include ‘one-word answers,’ ‘phrases’ and ‘repetition.’

    Interviewee “M” talks about learning to use a computer and exploring unfamiliar computer programs. M’s responses are generally kept short. A mixture of one-word answers, phrases, and repetitiveness implies that she is not overly expressive, and therefore makes it difficult to use her responses in research. However I believe a researcher can turn any interview into a good source of reference when the information is approached the right way.

     Many times M answered unprofessionally when she used one-word answers (code one) even when there was room to elaborate. When CH asks her if taking a course in computer programming helped her overcome her fear M only responds with “yeah.” “Yeah” is a very casual word. Whereas a “yes” is more serious and conveys a note of finality, “yeah” often falls flat when not followed by anything. Here, to seem more personable, M could have elaborated and said, “Yeah it helped me feel…” or “Yeah, I learned that…” to help CH and readers see where she might have been coming from, or where her head had been at the time of her class. In Excerpt 1 readers of the interview were informed that M distrusted technology when she stated that she didn’t believe the computer would “represent what [she] wanted it to represent,” and in Excerpt 2 she explains that she was not an experienced computer user; while it may be inferable that these insecurities are the stem of her fear of computers, it is not explicitly stated and therefore we do not know exactly what it was about new computer programs that scared M into not wanting to associate with them. Despite this, however, CH makes good use of M’s answer and asks what helped M overcome her fear. While we do not know what specifically made M fear technology, CH does not look at the issue with tunnel vision and decides to move onto other topics. This not only makes good use of time but also is more useful when gathering information. By focusing in on just one, slightly underdeveloped idea interviewers can lose sight of their goal. While more explanation is preferable, M has said enough for readers to understand her basic mindset about computer programming and CH has used enough sense to remember there are more topics that can be covered to help explain M’s experiences.

     M also has a few key phrases (code two) that she repeats, making her answers both indecisive and unprofessional. M’s two most used phrases are “you know,” which she says twelve times throughout the interview, and “I guess,” which she says nine times. These phrases lessen the impact and perceived credibility of the speaker. When a speaker compromises his or her own beliefs or statements with “I guess” it invalidates what he or she is saying. “I guess” conveys a lack of confidence in what is being said. This uncertainty diminishes the impact M’s statement could otherwise give. In addition to seeming confused, repeatedly saying “I guess” makes the speaker seem as though they have no authority in their field whatsoever (or unprofessional). When M says “I guess…I didn’t trust myself, I didn’t trust the computer, I was afraid,” it sounds more like a rationalization than a statement; “I guess…I was afraid” makes it seem like M doesn’t know what she was feeling. All throughout the interview, M reinforces the idea of new programming making her nervous or anxious. There is no doubt that she truly disliked using unfamiliar computer programs. But by saying, “I guess,” M undermines her own feelings. Furthermore when M follows a statement with, “You know” she puts onus on the interviewer and readers to be able to figure out what she is trying to convey; as the interviewee, it is her job to tell us.  Good interviewers and researchers, however, can bypass these lingual slurs and pick out what the main idea is, according to the information the interviewee has given. Also, this teaches researchers to not rely solely on a single source. Also, as researchers and audience alike, it is important to take the situation into consideration and remember that some settings are more casual than others. In reality, M’s casual way of speaking could misrepresent her true potential and intellect. Remembering this is another way researchers can use what may seem like inarticulate responses.

          Finally is the issue of repetitiveness (code three). M often either repeats something she has already said or something CH has said to her, which portrays her as indecisive. In Excerpt 2, M says “…I guess what could happen, you know? You know, what could happen, you put your work in you press a button and you just—what’s going to happen?” This is bad interview form because it is both confusing to read and confusing to listen to. M’s circular way of talking again enforces the feeling that she does not have a good grasp on the topic. It would be sufficient to say, “I didn’t know what would happen,” which could leave CH room to ask another question. Repeating oneself gives the impression that, as an interviewee, you do not possess much knowledge about the question you are answering. Similar to saying “yeah” or “I guess” it lessens the listener or reader’s confidence in your knowledge of the topic. However, mistakes like this are easily fixed: repeating yourself can be perceived as a way of stressing an idea that is important to you. As a researcher or interviewer, this is another strategy for making use of information that you have already received.

     Despite M’s occasional blunder, she did make his points clear enough that CH could be able to make use of them in a paper. Also, M did technically answer each question with some degree of definition, so her view of the topic can be found with relative ease. M’s interview, in my opinion, would be best used as an example to use alongside another source as opposed to the interview being used as a source by itself. If I were writing a paper on adult learners, I would find an article explaining why adults are apprehensive when dealing with computers, and use M as an example to back the article up. Overall, the interview does have consistent thoughts, and substantial feedback, and contains enough information to be useful. I believe CH would be able to use this interview in a paper by not getting stuck on details, reading between the lines for main points and stressing points the interviewee feels strongly about. I believe I have proven my thesis correct: even though an interviewee might provide the utmost quality material, their input can still be valuable and usable. 

Blog 13

     Devon Yanvary
3/18/2013

Dr. Chandler

Good Interviews Gone Bad

     Interviews are one of the classic ways of gathering information. As the name suggests, interviews provide a person’s view on a topic, their personal stance and any insight the interviewee may possess. With such a beneficial tool available, why wouldn’t every researcher make use of interviews? Simply put, interviewees are not always a source of quality information. There are many factors that can contort an interviewee’s responses. Both participants possess the potential to skew the results. Interviewers can use unclear wording, leading, and implying that there is a ‘correct,’ or expected, answer can all influence how successful an interview actually is. In addition to these factors, interviewees can give unclear or incomplete responses, be unprofessional, or let the desire to project a certain image of them change their responses. With so many obstacles, is it possible to make good use of a bad interview? In the interview entitled “Adult Learner and New Literacies,” interviewee “M” talks about learning to use a computer.          

     M’s responses are generally kept short. A mixture of one-word answers, phrases, and repetitiveness implies that he is not overly expressive, and therefore makes it difficult to use his responses in research. However I believe a researcher can turn any interview into a good source of reference when the information is approached the right way.

     Many times M used one-word answers when there was room to elaborate. When CH asks him if taking a course in computer programming helped him overcome his fear, M only responds with “yeah.” “Yeah” is a very casual word, very dissimilar to the formality that a “yes,” can carry. A “yes” is more serious and conveys a note of finality, whereas “yeah” often falls flat when not followed by anything. Here, to seem more personable, M could have elaborated and said, “Yeah it helped me feel…” or “Yeah, I learned that…” to help CH and readers see where M might have been coming from, or where his head had been at the time of his class. Readers know that M had expressed a distrust of technology in Excerpt 1, and in Excerpt 2 he describes that he was an inexperienced computer user; while it may be inferable that these insecurities are the stem of his fear of computers, it is not explicitly stated and therefore we do not know exactly what it was about new computer programs that scared M into not associating with them. Despite this, however, CH makes good use of M’s answer and asks what helped M overcome his fear. While we do not know what specifically made M fear technology, CH does not look at the issue with tunnel vision and decides to move onto other topics. This not only makes good use of time but also is more useful when gathering information. By focusing on just one, slightly cloudy idea interviewers can lose sight of their goal. While more explanation is preferable M has said enough for readers to understand his basic mindset about computer programming.

     M also has a few key phrases that he repeats; his two most used phrases are “you know,” which he says twelve times throughout the interview, and “I guess,” which he says nine times. These phrases lessen the impact and perceived credibility of the speaker. When a speaker compromises his own beliefs or statements with “I guess” it invalidates what he or she is saying. “I guess” conveys a lack of confidence in what is being said. When being interviewed, it is implied that the interviewer is interested in your opinion—otherwise they would not take the time to ask you questions. Furthermore, to say it nine times in one interview makes a speaker look as though they have no authority in their field whatsoever. So much uncertainty diminishes the impact a statement could otherwise give. When M says “I guess…I didn’t trust myself, I didn’t trust the computer, I was afraid,” it sounds more like a rationalization that a statement; “I guess…I was afraid” makes it seem like M doesn’t know what he was feeling. All throughout the interview, M reinforces the idea of new programming making him nervous or anxious. There is no doubt that he truly disliked computer programs. By saying, “I guess,” M undermines his own feelings, although CH is obviously interested in his experiences. Furthermore, saying, “You know” puts onus on the interviewer and readers to be able to figure out what M is trying to convey; as the interviewee, it is his job to tell us.  Good interviewers and researchers, however, 

can bypass these lingual slurs and pick out what the main idea is, according to the information the interviewee 

has given. Also, this teaches researchers to not rely solely on a single source.
          Finally is the issue of repetitiveness. M makes a habit of wither repeating himself or repeating something CH has said to him. In Excerpt 2, M says “…I guess what could happen, you know? You know, what could happen, you put your work in you press a button and you just—what’s going to happen?” This is bad interview form because it is both confusing to read and confusing to listen to. M’s circular way of talking again enforces the feeling that he does not have a good grasp on the topic. It would be sufficient to say, “I didn’t know what would happen,” which could leave CH room to ask another question. Repeating oneself gives the impression that, as an interviewee, you do not possess much knowledge about the question you are answering. Like saying “yeah” or “I guess” it lessens the listener or reader’s confidence in your authority of the topic at hand. However, mistakes like this are easily enough fixed; repeating yourself can be perceived as a way of stressing an idea that is important to you. As a researcher or interviewer, this is how to make use of information that you have already received.

     Despite M’s occasional blunder, he did make his points clear enough that CH would be able to make use of them in a paper. Also, M did technically answer each question with some definition, so his view of the topic can be found with relative ease. M’s interview, in my opinion, would make a better example to accompany another source. If I were writing a paper on adult learners, I would find an article explaining why adults are apprehensive when dealing with computers, and use M as an example to back the article up. I believe I have proven my thesis correct: even though an interviewee might provide the utmost quality material, their input can still be valuable and usable. 

Blog 11

I would like to address the topic of comments that aren't negative or misinterpret-able ('what different kinds of comments to teachers write that don't require students to revise their work, and what are the functions of those comments?')

Comments that don't require students to revise are the comments that provide positive feedback. These types of comments tell the student what they have done correctly. Comments like this set an example for students and helps them establish what style of writing works best for them and encourages students to continue writing in that style. It also shows students that teachers are actually taking time to look at their work. These comments also remind students that, while revision may be needed, they are not doing poorly. Revision is often viewed as being synonymous with failure. This is why too many negative comments from teachers end up discouraging students from trying. A positive comment acts as a reward or a compliment, showing the student that they are not failing to accomplish their goal.It also  establishes a certain tone from the teacher that conveys something other than criticism. When a teacher expresses a liking to something a student has written, it makes them feel good (I can speak from experience) and makes them feel more confident about their writing. Positive reinforcement shows that a student's efforts are not going unnoticed.

Codes relating to this type of feedback would, in my opinion, include key words like "good", "nice", "excellent", etc. I believe this to be coding because it breaks down the essay into smaller components and accent what is being done correctly. These types of comments are like hints that help point the student in the direction they need to take their essay in.

Categories for positive feedback include phases like "this is well written", "i like this", "good focus", "well done" and any other comments that go into detail about what is working in the essay (generally that paragraph/overview/summary at the end of an essay). I believe phrases like these to be categories because they make use of the coding (key words) and develop them into fuller thoughts. Positive phrases build off of code/key words to produce a more personalized reaction from the teacher.

Patterns include repetitive enforcement.

Blog 10

When creating surveys, questionnaires, or any type of multi-answer testing mechanism, language use plays a key role in the usefulness of the results it produces. The biggest flaw in the Writing Option major survey is the language wasn’t as clear as it could have been. A lot of the questions were either repetitive or contradictory. Questions like 1, 5, 12, and 14 all relate to the revision process. Revision is a big factor in the success of a paper, so documenting the typical steps a student would take when editing a paper can provide useful and relevant information. However, the wording used in this survey made the questions seem like they contradicted each other. Key words like “typically,” and phrases like “spend most of my time” make it seem like there is only one possible answer. “Typically,” and “most” are words used as generalizations; “typically” is synonymous with other words like “usually” and “normally,” which imply that an action is repeated enough that it becomes atypical when it is not performed. The use of “typically” also implies that if one thing is done “typically” or “usually,” then another action cannot be performed at the same time and as often, because then the first action would not be “typical” anymore and the two would conflict with each other. A person who “typically” studies while listening to music cannot also “typically” study in silence. Likewise, if a person is described as spending “most of their time” reading, they cannot also be described as spending  “most of their time” with friends, because the actions contradict each other—does the person read more, or go out more? So when this survey states that students typically spend most of their time working on grammar, organization and arrangement, it feels like we, as students, have to pick one as to not conflict with the others.

Surveys are useful for collecting general information. They can’t collect very detailed information; the questions would be intricate for short responses, and the answers given would require a lot more analysis. More analysis of answers would take up more time than necessary and would be hard to average together to get a general consensus. Surveys are best for quickly collecting data from the group in interest in order to establish a general feel for what the group thinks or feels.

Challenges include wording, specificity and bias. Wording, as previously discussed, plays a large role in the interpretability of the survey. Bad wording can result in skewed data, which is detrimental to the outcome of the study. It is also difficult to obtain specific data, as the questions must usually be concise so that more information can be gathered in less time. Researchers run the risk of asking questions that are too broad. This is what happened to the questions in the Writing Option survey. Because the questions were too generalized, the purpose of the survey was lost. Researchers must establish a focus—what are we trying to learn?—and stick to it. Questions must always relate back to this so good information can be obtained. 

Finally, researchers need to avoid bias. Cullington’s essay is a good example of question bias; the way in which a question is asked determines the answer that is given. If a survey taker feels the researcher wants a specific answer, they are more likely to answer in accordance to their expectations. This also skews results and can lead to incorrect results. Researchers must make sure to be as neutral as possible when asking their questions; they must try to avoid revealing their stance on a topic and never lead the interviewee/survey taker to believe they should answer with a specific answer. 

Blog 9

(LO# = Learning Outcome #)

1. This question refers to the structural/grammatical progress a student will generally make throughout the writing process. This question is straight-forward so I categorized it under LO1. 
2. As a writer, you will research multiple sources, so for this question i categorized it under LO3. "Two or more methodologies" is tricky wording, but I felt that the use of multiple sources, and therefore multiple source format, fit well enough in this category.
3. This question is nearly a word-for-word copy of the fifth learning outcome. It is also straight-forward, so I categorized this in LO5. 
4. Textual analysis is being able to examine a text and pick out the main points, so I categorized this question under LO2.
5. This question refers to the understanding of a paper that develops during revision. Many papers start out in an unsure direction and become clearer and more precise with editing. Because of this, I categorized this under LO1.
6. Discourse analysis is also very contextual. The use of language can determine the entire meaning of a sentence, paragraph or an entire piece. Because of this, I categorized this question under LO2.
7. Because people all begin writing in different ways.  A paper can start with an outline, a Venn DIagram, or a web diagram. BEcause of this diversity and different ways of unlocking creativity, I categorized this with LO3.
8. I categorized this with LO3 because discussion and differnt opinions are also good ways to get a paper started. It is another method.
9. This I categorized under LO5 because what you learn in other classes does not stay in other classes. Lessons learned in on eplace are applicable everywhere in life.
10. This obviously goes with LO4, becuase LO4 exclusively deals with presentations. A negative aspect to this question (information not provided) is why doesnt the student like to give presentations? This is an imporant factor and shouldnt be ignored in surveys.
11. LO2, becuase it is basically a word-for-word copy. They both refer to identifying central ideas through a source.
12. LO1, becuase, again, it is marking the progress a student will make due to revisions. This question marks grammatical progress.
13. This also refers to LO4, as it pertains exclusevly to presenting.
14. Also refers to LO1 as it marks more revision progression. This refers to organiational progress.
15. LO3 becuase it referes to creative ways to jump start an essay.

16--19 I found hard to categrize as they are based solely on opinion and, therefore, do not really mark a learning outcome. (At least none of the ones listen, in my opinion)


Analyzing the Survey

The audience: when analyzing the survey the audience seems to be English writing majors. Most of the statements gear towards the writing process a student experiences in their course.

The person giving the survey is collecting information on students and their writing process and/or classroom experience.


The Statements:
The statements about feelings I would take out or change because for example statement #10, someone might be able to give exceptional presentations but they may not feel confident. (Statement 2 & 8 as well)


The ranking I believe is useful because it tells the person, giving the survey, where the students’ strengths and weaknesses are and they can compare it from one class to another.

Statement 12- during the revising process, when if we also look for other writing issues and not just grammatical.


Answers:
When looking at the different answers that are available in the survey, I noticed that they didn’t add a “N/A” as an option. The reason I feel is to get an actual answer, they don’t want the student to have the ability/ option to put N/A instead.

If there was an N/A option, the professors may feel the students will not answer truthfully or take the survey seriously. Although this may not stop them from giving false answers, it may lessen the possibility of them doing so.

The students who are taking the survey must have experienced each of the statements in order to answer it accordingly.

I feel like the options that the students have to answer for each statement does not give enough information to the one giving the survey