Today I met with my co-chairs and we discussed my committee, my timeline, and my prospectus draft itself – mostly the research questions. We decided on other members of the committee which I now need to meet with and ask to join the project (one of which I talked to this afternoon and is on board!), and my co-chairs approved my proposed timeline. So we are shooting for a prospectus defense for the week of March 12, as long as that works for other committee members.
We spent the remainder of our meeting talking about my research questions, which at this point feel like piles of burning refuse. Not really – but I’m finding it hard to articulate the big questions about what I want to know and learn through my study. Here are the questions I brought to the meeting today:
Study Research Questions:
- What are the challenges to implementing strategic instruction in new media composition in the college writing classroom?
- What role does the instructor’s prior experiences and background knowledge play in the implementation of strategic instruction in new media composition?
- What is the role of a learn-by-doing approach within strategic instruction in new media composition?
- What is the role of instruction in metalanguage within strategic instruction in new media composition?
- What is the role of reflection within strategic instruction in new media composition?
- Does strategic instruction in new media composition open an instructional space that leads students to develop a deep meta-awareness about writing, rhetorical choices, and multiple modes of expression?
1 and 2 probably will collapse into one question about the obstacles and opportunities for instructors and students presented by new media composition. 3-5 most likely will collapse into one question something to the effect of “What factors within strategic instruction in new media contribute most effectively to students developing a meta-awareness about writing?” And question 6 can’t be a Y/N question, but a how question makes too much of an assumption, so I need to figure out a way to word it that takes the middle ground.
All this tinkering with wording in the RQs seems silly to me in some ways, but on the other hand, it is true that I need to think carefully about what exactly I want to learn before I can think about designing my methods or about how to organize my lit. review.
So the plan at this point: continue forming my committee and dance around the fire of the RQs that once existed. It’s ok – they weren’t that good anyway.