Narrative Inquiry Conf Paper_Harmonising the Voices
-
Upload
dianne-allen -
Category
Documents
-
view
42 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Narrative Inquiry Conf Paper_Harmonising the Voices
Harmonising the voices: narrative inquiry and professional practice 1
Paper delivered to 2008 Inaugural Conference on Narrative Inquiry, University of Wollongong
Harmonising the voices: narrative, inquiry and professional practice Meeta Chatterjee, Dianne Allen and Heather Jamieson
Learning Development, and Faculty of Education, University of Wollongong
April, 2008
Contents Harmonising the voices: narrative, inquiry and professional practice ........................... 1
Abstract .......................................................................................................................... 2
Introduction .................................................................................................................... 2
Context ........................................................................................................................... 3
The different perspectives that inform our practice ....................................................... 4
Dianne‟s Voice – The Marker‟s Perspective ................................................................. 5
Learning Development perspective ............................................................................... 7
Heather‟s voice – our teaching approach ................................................................... 8
Meeta‟s voice – consideration of the issue of Voice ................................................. 9
What stimulated me to investigate this… .............................................................. 9
My research story … ............................................................................................ 10
A coda .. of sorts .................................................................................................. 13
Drawing towards a tentative conclusion: ..................................................................... 14
How has participating in this narrative inquiry forum helped inform our teaching/
marking in this subject? (Our 3 voices) .................................................................. 14
Bibliography ................................................................................................................ 15
APPENDIX .................................................................................................................. 17
PRESENTATION: ....................................................................................................... 18
Harmonising the voices: narrative inquiry and professional practice 2
Paper delivered to 2008 Inaugural Conference on Narrative Inquiry, University of Wollongong
Abstract
This paper explores the experience of teaching students to use narrative and inquiry as
a way of reflecting on and improving professional practice.
During their course of study the students are required to engage with and
subsequently draw together different sources of information and disparate forms of
expression – expert opinion in the highly resolved language of published research,
interview and other empirical data, usually expressed in spoken language, and the
students‟ own reflections on their professional and personal experience. Because
impersonality and objectivity are often perceived as the key characteristics of
academic writing, it is a challenging process for many students to weave these voices
together into a personally inflected research story.
This paper reflects on the process of helping students to negotiate the component
genres and sources of information and deploy them in their written tasks. It is
presented from two perspectives. The first is that of the marker who has been in the
unique position of observing the progress of students from the initial stages of
formulating a question, through the intervening period of answering the question
using the different sources of information and finally to displaying the qualities of a
reflexive practitioner. The second perspective is that of the learning development
lecturers who have provided formative writing activities to scaffold and make explicit
the writing processes involved and subsequently help the students wrestle the material
into a harmonious whole.
Keywords: narrative, inquiry, self-study, voice
Introduction
One aspect of masters studies in many Australian course designs involves introducing
students to the practice of research, to know its boundaries and strengths and to be
able to critically engage with the reported research findings of others. EDGZ921,
Introduction to Research and Inquiry, a six credit point unit of study in the Master of
Education within various specialities at the University of Wollongong, is not different
from other courses in these objectives. It does, however, appear to be different in the
way it addresses these objectives. EDGZ921 seeks to introduce and teach these
objectives by asking students to use narrative and inquiry as a way of reflecting on
and improving professional practice.
Harmonising the voices: narrative inquiry and professional practice 3
Paper delivered to 2008 Inaugural Conference on Narrative Inquiry, University of Wollongong
Students are required to engage with and subsequently draw together different sources
of information and disparate forms of expression – expert opinion in the highly
resolved language of published research, interview and other empirical data, usually
expressed in spoken language, and the students‟ own reflections on their professional
and personal experience. Because impersonality and objectivity are often perceived
as the key characteristics of academic writing, it is a challenging process for many
students to weave these voices together into a personally inflected research story.
As teachers we are relatively new to the task of providing support in this course:
marking assignments and giving formative as well as summative feedback, and
conducting process support in the area of the functional literacies required to
undertake the tasks associated with this unit of study. In this paper we commence the
process of reflecting on what is involved in helping students to negotiate the
component genres and sources of information and deploy them in their written tasks.
Our observations reflect the different backgrounds we bring to the task, related to the
understandings we have of what the support role asks of us. Consequently our paper
is presented from two main perspectives. The first is that of the marker who has been
in the unique position of observing the progress of students from the initial stages of
formulating a question, through the intervening period of answering the question
using the different sources of information and finally to displaying the qualities of a
reflexive practitioner. The second perspective is that of the learning development
lecturers who have provided formative writing activities to scaffold and make explicit
the writing processes involved and subsequently help the students wrestle the material
into a harmonious whole. Our overriding objective is finding out how we can assist
our students with their learning tasks in this subject. Our focus in this paper is the
use of „voice‟ in the process of writing a narrative and reporting an inquiry arising out
of that narrative.
Context
The unit „Introduction to Research and Inquiry‟ (EDGZ921) is a compulsory
component of coursework study at masters level in the Faculty of Education at
Wollongong University, and part of preparatory studies for research degrees for
Harmonising the voices: narrative inquiry and professional practice 4
Paper delivered to 2008 Inaugural Conference on Narrative Inquiry, University of Wollongong
cohorts which include a significant number of international students. As presently
constructed, it is a one-semester course (12-14 weeks) which involves the writing up,
examination and sharing of a story, developed from a recount of something significant
from the student‟s practice experience which poses a problem. The identified
problem is investigated, drawing on the literature of published research, further
personal reflective work and the collection of data from others‟ practice experience,
e.g. by interview. This built into a research story. (For further detail see Allen, 2008
later in these conference proceedings.)
The course has four major assessment strands: (1) Problem Posing Vignette (PPV) -
1,000 word recount of a particular teaching event or an area of professional learning
that the student wishes to explore, leading to focus questions to guide subsequent
research; (2) Research Story - 4,000 word document drawing on the student‟s
reflective journal, literature review, empirical study; (3) Critical response - 1,000
word reflexive dialogue with a „critical friend‟; (4) Hurdle - 10 short online posts.
The different perspectives that inform our practice
As support staff for the course, we have had a number of interactions over the Spring
semester and since, seeking to understand where we are each coming from and how,
together, we can provide feedback that „harmonises‟, and moves towards helping
students get the best outcomes possible from the unit of study.
We come to our respective tasks from different backgrounds and have been immersed
in different conceptual frames. Dianne‟s most recent work has been within the arena
of reflective practice (Donald Schon, John Dewey and others working from these
bases). Heather and Meeta‟s approach to the teaching of English language and
literacy is oriented toward language as social practice, and is informed by systemic
functional linguistics and critical discourse analysis. Meeta‟s experience includes
cross-cultural elements and significant engagement in TESOL and writing. But we all
acknowledge that we too are still learning.
One of our reflexive engagements with this paper involves finding out (learning-by-
doing) if we can „harmonise our voices‟ as well as the voices of the data and
Harmonising the voices: narrative inquiry and professional practice 5
Paper delivered to 2008 Inaugural Conference on Narrative Inquiry, University of Wollongong
literature. One pointer in this endeavour is John Heron‟s concept of „isomorphism‟ –
as collaborative inquirers, from different perspectives, seek to draw their perceptions
together, the finding of commonality may mark (as in triangulation) „some significant
overlap of basic principles with other, related fields of knowledge‟, and approach
somewhat closer to a trueness about the phenomenon examined (Heron, 1992).
Dianne’s Voice – The Marker’s Perspective
I come to the marking of the assessment tasks of this subject with a clear view that the
practice story, the narrative, is a key element of recognising and tapping practice
knowledge, and with the objective of endeavouring to contribute to professional
development for these masters students by providing formative feedback in the
development of practice-relevant research and its reporting. (For further detail see
Allen, 2008, later in the conference proceedings; see also Allen, 2005 thesis.)
My inputs, and associated thinking, were captured in contemporaneous reflective
notes that helped me keep track of what was I assessing, how, and why; what were my
concerns in marking (consistency; assessment appropriate to curriculum intent; being
appreciative; providing useful formative feedback); what was I noticing about process
and students‟ responses and difficulties in order to give general advice; and how was I
expressing feedback that I thought relevant (some of this contributes to my own
learning about writing, and about the research process). From these notes I compiled
contemporaneous general assignment reports for the students, the Subject Lecturer
and the Learning Development team for the three assessment tasks. I also engaged in
end-of-course evaluation with the Subject Lecturer and Learning Development team.
In the course of marking I compiled digital copies of the students‟ work and my
feedback, and in continuing the „how do I improve ..?‟ conversation with the Learning
Development team I have come to appreciate more what are some of the issues
involved in reporting on practice-relevant inquiry, and via the self-study approach.
As I marked, three key aspects of the whole process have become apparent. Firstly,
ownership of research impacts on quality. Students are engaged with their particular
question and there are implications of, and practical evaluation criteria being applied
to, the work being done. Secondly, voice is a key aspect of success in the task, and
Harmonising the voices: narrative inquiry and professional practice 6
Paper delivered to 2008 Inaugural Conference on Narrative Inquiry, University of Wollongong
holding on to first person voice and self-study examination while reporting to peers is
difficult. A third observation is that discussion with a critical friend, once the
Research Story is finalised, is an important and rewarding experience, and students
get feedback that good narrative written style is appreciated by the reader – it has
communicative power.
In providing general feedback to the PPV task, I enunciate the following indications
of „good‟ for the three basic components of the task:
“(a) A 'good' reflection on past experience/ current practice moves from
description to evaluation, touching on how the practitioner is prioritising
amongst the multiple evaluations possible. If it identifies a dilemma,
competition between values, it is on the way to identifying a problem that
will need to be researched, and thought about, to reconsider assumptions,
previous actions, previous conclusions, and/or previous motivations, with a
view to perhaps changing, or knowing more of why this is a dilemma for
you, and may always be a dilemma for you
(b) 'Good' 'thick, rich description', for me, allows the reader (me) to make
relatable connections, to recognize their own practice/practice dilemmas in
the contextual information provided
(c) A 'good' Focus Question will be clear and researchable. For self-study,
the "I" focus helps clarify, by moving from the 'instrumental/ scientific/
objective/ generalisable' to the personal change component, recognizing
self as significant, and recognizing the specific context as significant.”
(General Feedback to Assignment 1 EDGZ921 Autumn 2007)
One of the key inputs that I make, in providing feedback to the PPV, is to recommend
that students endeavour to cast one of their focus questions in “I” terms. The intent is
to help them shift from a practical-technical frame to a self-study frame. As I have
looked at the Research Stories in Spring 2007, attending to voice and quality of report
and learning, the observation of how difficult it is to hold on to the first person voice
and self-study examination, while reporting to peers, also flags a significant problem
for my ongoing practice as marker. Just under half the students, who were able to
express one of their focus questions in “I” terms, were not able to progress the rest of
the way into reporting findings related to self-study in their final report. How do I
help these students? Are there insights from the perspectives of Learning
Development that help me understand what I am trying to do and how?
Harmonising the voices: narrative inquiry and professional practice 7
Paper delivered to 2008 Inaugural Conference on Narrative Inquiry, University of Wollongong
Learning Development perspective
In Spring 2007, negotiation between the EDGZ921 subject lecturer and Wollongong
University‟s Learning Development unit at resulted in a decision that Learning
Development staff would provide integrated learning support during class time. This
decision to increase the involvement of Learning Development was because of the
priority areas of learning support that the subject and its students represent: EDGZ921
is an introductory subject where students are making a transition to new forms of
inquiry, and it has a high proportion of international students who are relative
newcomers to the educational context of the Australian university and/or English as
the language of instruction.
The identification of these areas as priorities for learning support is a reflection of the
academic literacies approach that guides Learning Development practice at the
University of Wollongong (see for example Lea and Street, 1998; Hoadley-Maidment,
2000). Academic literacies (AL) is a developmental rather than a remedial approach
to student learning, proceeding on the idea that all students need to negotiate new
genres, text types, forms of inquiry, and epistemologies. By attempting to articulate
the complexity and diversity of literacy practices in the contemporary academy, AL
seeks to go beyond a deficit model of learning support, which is associated with an
academic skills approach, as well as to problematise the depiction of academic culture
as homogenous, a limitation of an academic socialisation approach.
Learning Development‟s actual contribution to the in-class teaching in EDGZ921 in
Spring 2007 was in the form of four tutorials which focused on assessment related
tasks: (1) writing a professional journal, writing a problem posing vignette (PPV); (2)
writing a literature review, undertaking critical analysis, considering the nature of
evidence and voice; (3) framing interview questions, writing up interview data; (4)
writing the research story, integrating the evidence, writing a cohesive extended text.
The teaching strategies adopted in these tutorials included explicit focus on the
assessment criteria, annotated models of text types and genres, and reiteration of task
types to allow development of skills. In addition, the students had individual
Harmonising the voices: narrative inquiry and professional practice 8
Paper delivered to 2008 Inaugural Conference on Narrative Inquiry, University of Wollongong
consultations with the Learning Development lecturers who provided detailed
comments on draft versions of written assessments.
Heather’s voice – our teaching approach
My perspective is that of a relative newcomer to narrative inquiry, and my interest is
in whether trying to identify what is distinctive about its epistemological framework
might illuminate and inform our teaching in subjects where a narrative inquiry mode
is adopted.
The AL approach that guides our teaching has undoubted advantages. One of its
strengths is its articulation of the diversity and complexity of literacies in the
contemporary academy. This provides a useful framework for considering the array of
literacy practices required of the students in a subject like EDGZ921. Relevantly, the
AL approach recognises literacies as social practices in which epistemology and
identity are inherent components, and it identifies that a variety of communicative
repertoires operate in the academy, requiring students to negotiate conflicting literacy
practices and develop a capacity for modulation of their own linguistic practices (Lea
and Street, 1998, 172). However, I have some reservations about it, or at least feel
that we need to reflect on the way in which we deploy it in our teaching strategies.
There is a tension between conceptualising complexity and pedagogic practice, for
example scaffolding the students‟ negotiation of writing tasks.
From our interactions with students in EDGZ921, especially in individual writing
consultations, we observe that their biggest problems relate to orchestrating the
various sources of information: (1) integrating the different forms of evidence; (2)
honouring their own experiences; (3) placing their voices against those of „others‟,
especially relating the scholarly literature to own experience; and (4) handling the
„voices‟ from their data. These difficulties indicate that the students need more help in
negotiating the shift in approach to knowledge and voice that this subject requires.
One of the teaching strategies we use is providing annotated examples of „good‟ and
„bad‟ texts. For this we try to use authentic samples of writing, which has some
Harmonising the voices: narrative inquiry and professional practice 9
Paper delivered to 2008 Inaugural Conference on Narrative Inquiry, University of Wollongong
distinct advantages but also the disadvantage of making it difficult to isolate what is
good (or bad) from other features of the text. In particular it seems that the shift in
voice and epistemology that needed in this context is hard to model grammatically or
textually. As both Dianne and Meeta point out, this is not a simple matter of using
first person singular pronoun, though it seems to help a bit.
My questions are how can I better conceptualise the difference between the „textual I‟
and the „epistemological I‟, and how can I translate this into an AL teaching
framework. A good starting point is a better engagement with the elusive concept of
voice, as in Meeta‟s exploration below.
Meeta’s voice – consideration of the issue of Voice
What stimulated me to investigate this…
„Can I actually write „I‟ and „me‟ in my Problem Solving Vignette? I find this very
confusing. When I was doing my English language course at the college, if I wrote „I‟ or
„me‟ in my essay, my teacher would write in the margin, “You cannot use „I‟ or „me‟ in
academic writing. Academic writing is impersonal. Your opinions and feelings are not
important.”‟.
I took a deep breath as I thought of an acceptable answer. I realised that as an
academic skills teacher, I have given similar feedback to students in other subjects.
However, this subject was different. As an introduction to a research method that
involves self-study, not only was „I‟ acceptable but central to the method of inquiry.
Narrative inquiry is a relatively new research interest for me. The form of inquiry is
intriguing because of its emphasis on research being communicated with the
directness and simplicity of story telling. Combined with the fact that the research
method aims at developing professional reflexivity, the assessments in the subject not
only encourage lifting the embargo on „I‟ and „me‟, but make space for an active
engagement of the „self‟ in practice through using relevant literature, empirical
research and finally one‟s own reflection on the topic.
My response to Hiroshi‟s question (quoted above) ultimately was a discussion on how
the writing of an essay differs from the writing required in the subject. We spoke
Harmonising the voices: narrative inquiry and professional practice 10
Paper delivered to 2008 Inaugural Conference on Narrative Inquiry, University of Wollongong
about the differences in the purpose of writing the texts; the approach to knowledge
that underlies both kinds of writing; and the language used. This is partly what we
uncovered:
‘Essay’ conventions EDGZ921 writing expectations in the
PPV and the research story
Purpose of the essay: Generally to
advance an argument: A claim well-
supported by relevant and convincing
evidence.
Purpose of a PPV: To recount and
describe a teaching/learning experience
with a view to explore an area of concern
so as to improve practice
Purpose of a research story: To narrate
the experience of exploration using
literature reviews, empirical research,
one‟s own reflection and a critical friend.
Approach to knowledge: Located outside
the writer and displayed „Objectively‟
„Subjective‟ experience validated and
valued. Exploration of professional
practice through the filter of personal
experience of great importance.
Language: Impersonal language: „I‟
erased grammatically through the use of
passive and nominalised forms
Personal voice, „I‟ embraced. Inclusion of
the active voice wherever necessary.
Coherence achieved through presenting:
A claim well-supported by relevant and
convincing evidence
Coherence achieved by using established
criteria in a narrative eg. Temporal/
chronological/ thematic or causal
connection
Type of evidence: Privileging evidence
from established scholarly sources
Type of evidence: Emphasis on feelings,
observation and reflection –„noticing‟ in
the PPV and in the research story, voices
from scholars, research participant/s, own
journal, critical friend
In the Problem Posing Vignette (PPV) the text type expected involves making the
personal experience paramount. Thus the problem that Hiroshi raised was not
restricted to the use of the personal pronouns. It had to do with a larger issue of
identity in writing.
My research story …
The first step of the journey, for me, involved putting myself through the process. I
examined the literature on identity and voice, talked to students about their
experiences (an excerpt is presented above) and reflected on the findings to inform
my pedagogy. What follows is a brief recount of that journey.
Harmonising the voices: narrative inquiry and professional practice 11
Paper delivered to 2008 Inaugural Conference on Narrative Inquiry, University of Wollongong
Identity in academic writing has been the focus of many empirical and theoretical
studies. The notion of identity has shaped and encouraged heated discussions on the
elusive concept of „voice‟ especially with regard to second language (L2) writing.
Three of them will be briefly overviewed here.
Hyland (2002) explores the use of first person pronouns in 64 Hong Kong
undergraduate theses written by L2 writers and compares them with a large corpus of
research articles and finds that significant underuse of authorial references realised
through the personal pronouns. In interviews with students and supervisors, Hyland
observed that two things become obvious. Firstly, students tended to follow the
recommendations of style guides and teaching programs that advocate objectivity and
anonymity. Secondly, even if student writers were aware of the rhetorical potential of
„I,‟ they may be inclined to avoid personal responsibility and the notion of authority
that goes with the projection of „I‟ in an academic text.
Another interesting study by Tang and John (1999) based on 27 undergraduate essays
builds a useful typology. The typology is presented below.
No „I‟ “I‟ as
representative
eg. „we the
French know‟
„I‟ as
guide
„I‟ as
architect
„I‟ as
raconteur
of research
process
eg. the data
I
collected…
„I‟ as
opinion-
maker
eg. I think
that
Khushwant
Singh
has…
„I‟ as
originator
Least
powerful
authorial
presence
Most
powerful
authorial
presence
On the basis of their studies, the authors argue that issues of writer identity deserve to
be discussed so that students can confidently make decisions about the identity they
might want to present in their texts. Effective writing education programs, they
suggest, need to encourage students to critically use personal pronouns to create the
meaning they want to create. However, individualistic identity implied in the use of
„I‟ can be problematic for many L2 writers because, as Scollon (1994) points out,
Asian students may be reluctant to assume a great deal of textual authority since it
Harmonising the voices: narrative inquiry and professional practice 12
Paper delivered to 2008 Inaugural Conference on Narrative Inquiry, University of Wollongong
may be construed as „too powerful‟ by the reader who is used to a more collectively
construed identity.
Perhaps, one of the most influential studies on identity is Ivanic‟s (1998) book length
work that reports on her research with eight mature „co-researchers‟. The study aims
at uncovering what toolkits are brought into the practice of writing by different groups
of writers. She theorizes that in writing four aspects of the writer‟s „self‟ exist in texts
in some form or the other. These are:
the autobiographical self that relates the writer as the performer. This
encompasses the socially constructed self that is a hold-all term used to cover
dimensions of gender, ethnicity, age etc., and it is not a fixed „self‟, but
constantly evolves in response to the contexts and situations that surround one.
the discoursal self is concerned with the writer as character in their text. It
could refer to the problematic way in which student writers portray themselves
in their writing. This „self‟ may embody the values, beliefs and the power
relations in their academic context, in other words, it contributes to an
appropriate „voice‟ in writing.
the authorial self that interacts with other texts (spoken/written tacitly said to
exist in society), negotiates them and incorporates them in writing. Some
academic writers, especially, in the beginning stages, tend to be self-effacing
(Ivanic, 1998, 26) in their writing because they are still working out how to
„author‟ texts, how much „authority‟ one is acceptable in one‟s „academic
writing‟.
the fourth dimension of the „self‟ is concerned with the ‘possibilities of
selfhood’. It refers to the „abstract prototypical identities available in the
socio-cultural context of writing‟ (Ivanic, 1998, 23) or the affiliations that the
writer may choose for themselves eg. environmentalist, gay activist and so on.
Applying these „off-the-peg combinations‟ (Ivanic, 1998, 27) in a research
context would mean choosing the label „constructivist‟, or „positivist‟, or
„critical‟ theorist to define oneself.
The literature is rich and varied in terms of its empirical and conceptual imaginings of
identity. One of my problems was to link the insights gathered from the readings to
the practicalities of a classroom situation.
Harmonising the voices: narrative inquiry and professional practice 13
Paper delivered to 2008 Inaugural Conference on Narrative Inquiry, University of Wollongong
Talking to students about their work was also an eye-opener. Their struggles to
juggle the different voices in texts needed pedagogic attention. For example, in
response to Hiroshi‟s question about, „How can I read so much and remember what is
relevant?‟ (Journal note, 5/8/07), a note-taking tool (see Appendix) was suggested.
Annotated versions of PPVs were useful in showing the staging of texts. The notion
of one‟s own voice is difficult to teach. In the next iteration of the course, I may use
this text to deconstruct how my identity is constructed here.
A coda .. of sorts
My reading alerted me to a number of things. Above all, was the awareness that the
insertion of „I‟ is not just a superficial grafting of personal pronoun to the text. As
Ivanic (1998) argues, writing is not a „neutral activity which we just learn like a
physical skill, but it implicates every fibre of the writer‟s multifaceted being‟ (1998,
181). At the core of the very act of writing is the person who shapes the writing,
making important choices, whether it is an essay or an assignment for EDGZ921. The
EDGZ921 assignments called for a greater disclosure of the different „selves‟
characterised by Ivanic‟s typology. The challenge will be to help student writers
articulate a voice that represents those „selves‟ and the voices of others. How they
orchestrate those various voices will depend on their own experiences and the
directions that they want to take.
Perhaps, my job as a learning developer is to subtly contribute to the writing by
engaging in dialogue to facilitate the acquisition of the self-assurance required to take
on the varied roles of the guide, the architect of the text, raconteur of the research and
the originator of the knowledge (Tang and John 1999). In practical terms, this would
imply the development of a „toolkit‟ or in Ivanic‟s words, „an array of mediational
means‟ (1998, 52) that would help „new‟ researchers construct an „I‟ for the subject in
their texts.
Harmonising the voices: narrative inquiry and professional practice 14
Paper delivered to 2008 Inaugural Conference on Narrative Inquiry, University of Wollongong
Drawing towards a tentative conclusion:
How has participating in this narrative inquiry forum helped inform our teaching/ marking in this subject? (Our 3 voices)
This examination of our practice, recognising our different emphases and voices, has
been designed to help us explore what we have learned from our first round
experience and in what ways we might feed back that learning into the course and our
ongoing responsibilities in providing support to the students undertaking the course.
Here we are reporting some of our tentative conclusions (King & Kitchener, 1994) as
we proceed into further rounds of practice.
The Learning Development team‟s teaching approach is informed by an academic
literacies model, arguably the best out of study skills and socialisation. But is our
model, which may or may not do justice to the comprehensiveness of academic
literacies, and/or the most effective way of teaching this kind of literacy? What the
teaching involves is the use of good and bad examples with annotations, which
attempt to make explicit what the criteria are for good and bad. But does this sort of
commentary at a grammatical level really get at the epistemological stance that‟s
required?
One of our appreciations, from a good example, is that the writing is „as a whole‟ and
with a structure that is quite complex. Annotating what is good, from good writing, is
difficult.
Another of our appreciations is that bringing the “I” voice into the reporting of inquiry
is not a simple task. Being aware of the different kinds of personal voice, as for
example spoken of in Elijah‟s, Tang & John‟s and Ivanic‟s work helps us to be more
alert about what the task of helping our students negotiate EDGZ921, successfully,
involves, and how that might provide key instruction for any further ongoing inquiries
these students conduct as practising professionals.
Harmonising the voices: narrative inquiry and professional practice 15
Paper delivered to 2008 Inaugural Conference on Narrative Inquiry, University of Wollongong
This exercise of collaborative reflection, and in the context of a joint construction for
presentation and publication, has taken us some way into the journey that Schon
speaks of in progressing from personal experience to validated knowledge. Schon
points out that the reflective work that starts out in the individual needs to be put
through a process of testing, by dialogue, in a socially supportive environment where
there is „affirm[ing] without dogmatism and confront[ing] without hostility
[(Hainer,1968)]‟ (Schon, 1991). We have found it truly instructive, and in ways that
individual effort could not have accomplished.
Bibliography
Allen, D., 2005, Contributing to Learning to Change: Developing an action learning
peer support group of professionals to investigate ways of improving their own
professional practice. Unpublished M.Ed.(Hons), University of Wollongong,
Wollongong. http://ro.uow.edu.au/theses/288/
Elijah, R., 2004, „Voice in Self-Study‟. In J. J. Loughran & M. L. Hamilton & V. K.
LaBoskey & T. Russell (Eds.), International Handbook of Self-Study of Teaching and
Teacher Education Practices (pp. 247-271). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Heron, J., 1992, Feeling and Personhood: Psychology in Another Key. London: Sage.
Hoadley-Maidment, E., 2000. „From Personal Experience to Reflective Practitioner:
Academic Literacies and Professional Education‟. In M.R. Lea & B. Stierer (Eds.),
Student Writing in Higher Education: New Contexts (pp. 165-178). Buckingham:
Open University Press.
Hyland, K., 2002, „Authority and invisibility: authorial identity in academic writing‟,
Journal of Pragmatics, Volume 34, 1091-1112
Ivanic, R. 1998, Writing and Identity: The Discoursal Construction of Identity in
Academic Writing, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
King, P., & Kitchener, K., 1994, Developing Reflective Judgment: understanding and
promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lea, M.R. and Street, B.V., 1998, „Student Writing in Higher Education: an academic
literacies approach‟, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 23, 2, 157-172.
Schon, D. A. (Ed.). 1991. The Reflective Turn: Case Studies in and on educational
practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Harmonising the voices: narrative inquiry and professional practice 16
Paper delivered to 2008 Inaugural Conference on Narrative Inquiry, University of Wollongong
Scollon, R., 1994, As a matter of fact: The changing ideology of authorship and
responsibility in discourse, World Englishes, 13, 33-46
Tang, R., and John, S., 1999, “The „I‟ in identity: Exploring writer identity in student
academic writing through the first person pronoun‟, English For Specific Purposes,
18, S 23-S39.
Harmonising the voices: narrative inquiry and professional practice 17
Paper delivered to 2008 Inaugural Conference on Narrative Inquiry, University of Wollongong
APPENDIX
Note taking tool to include student writer’s ‘voice‟
Author
Year
Theme
Theoretical
Framework
Research
Question/
Issue/s
Research
Method
Findings My thoughts
Hyland,
K.,2002
Ivanic, 1997 Is
academic
writing as
uniformly
objective
and
impersonal
as it is
commonly
portrayed
to be?
240
published
journal
articles –
30 in 8
disciplines
p. 353 are
textually
analysed
using
Wordpilot
….
soft knowledge‟
domains used more
1st person
pronouns.
Undergrads. used
fewer pronouns
than published
texts- believing that
I and we are
inappropriate in
academic writing
A peer-review report
on my contribution
came back with a
note that the used of
first person is not
acceptable in
academic writing.
Does the pronoun I
indicate authority?
Harmonising the voices: narrative inquiry and professional practice 18
Paper delivered to 2008 Inaugural Conference on Narrative Inquiry, University of Wollongong
PRESENTATION:
Harmonising the voices: narrative inquiry and professional practice 19
Paper delivered to 2008 Inaugural Conference on Narrative Inquiry, University of Wollongong
Harmonising the voices: narrative inquiry and professional practice 20
Paper delivered to 2008 Inaugural Conference on Narrative Inquiry, University of Wollongong
Harmonising the voices: narrative inquiry and professional practice 21
Paper delivered to 2008 Inaugural Conference on Narrative Inquiry, University of Wollongong