Meta-threads on Facebook

Meta-threads on Facebook

Favorite song. of. all. time!

A distant second - very distant - is LZ's Stairway to Heaven. Nothing can top this:

Michael Jackson - New Music - More Music Videos

Dissertation conclusion + Obama

In his 2005 Address to the American Library Association, Barack Obama talked about the relationship between literacy and our nations prosperity. In fact, when asked what was his primary message to the librarians, he responded: "That our prosperity as a nation is directly correlated to our literacy."

Emphasizing the higher standards that parents, educators and our nation should demand, Obama describes the level of literacy needed for 21st century jobs: "They require innovative thinking, detailed comprehension, and superior communication." This level of thinking, comprehension and communication is far beyond simple functional literacy. What Obama is describing is critical literacy.

To arrive at this level of literacy, critical literacy, parents, educators, librarians all need to reconceive how to develop our younger generations to ascend to such high levels of thinking, comprehending and communicating. Rightly, Obama talks about the habits that children must develop, values that adults must instill by teaching appropriate behaviors and disciplining these positive habits.

Obviously, as a literacy scholar, I agree with much of what Obama says. However, he over-emphasizes the function of these 21st century literacy habits. As does our system of k-12 education. The over-emphasis is on a set of abstracted literacy skills. Literacy is for higher level thinking, not higher level doing. In other words, the trend has been and continues to be to emphasize "white collar" literacy skills at the expense of "blue collar" literacy skills. This is what I mean by "abstracted literacy skills." Matthew Crawford's new book Shop Class as Soulcraft elaborates exactly on the point that I am making. At a point somewhere in the early 1990's, white collar, "information economy" job training and college prep became the goal of secondary education. As evidence he cites the trends in the dissolution of shop class and home ec and p.e. among other things. There was a physicality to these aspects of the curricula. These classes focused on making, doing, performing. In relation to literacy, these classes taught students how to read and comprehend technical manuals, directions on how to troubleshoot appliance malfunctions, how to fix things and do stuff. SAT/ACT prep makes these skills alien. And not only that, but these trends devalue and suck the prestige from manual labor and jobs where folks work with their hands.

Part of teaching "blue collar" literacy skills involves a certain amount of physicality. Throughout my dissertation I argue that literacy itself is a physical act. I push my argument Beyond that, though: literacy affects physicality. Literacy shapes what we do, how we do it and why. The next step for my dissertation, or, rather, my dissertation sets the stage for an argument for a return the type of integrated literacy training that the subjects of my study executed on a daily basis. Their literacy practices were not abstracted skills. And the reason for this is because their literacy skills were not separated from their physicality. The subjects of my study trained syncretically: they learned how to think innovatively, comprehend in detail and communicate with superior efficacy. Their physical "blue collar" literacy training facilitated the very critical literacy that Obama was calling for.

Meta-threads website - Feedback wanted!!

Feedback wanted!

Please check out the link to my in-progress Meta-threads website. I would love to hear your thoughts on the design, usability, readability, etc.

The products page is still under construction. And the lessons will be integrated soon.

http://meta-threads.com/new_site/index.html

Community behavior and Learning Practices (Hexis and Habitus)

A scientific study of human behavior (using non-scientific methodology):

Community driving behaviors differ depending on the region in which the driving is being done. Two case studies: South Florida and Central Illinois. Central Illinois driving is, comparatively, homogeneous, more polite, laid-back and statistically safer than South Florida. South Florida driving is heterogeneous, more rude, aggressive and statistically less safe than Central Illinois.

When I am in S. FL my driving behaviors are shaped by the milieu in which I am driving. So I drive faster, switch lanes more aggressively, get closer to other drivers, etc. When I am in C. IL my driving behaviors are influenced by that milieu. So I drive closer to the speed limit, switch lanes less aggressively, make sure I have more distance between other drivers, allow people to pull out of driveways during heavy street traffic, etc.

A friend who had experienced this juxtaposition as a passenger in my car pointed out this discrepancy in my driving behaviors. Annoyed by my "slow" driving when home in C. IL she presented some of these differences to me. Her observation was, to me, extremely insightful.

Here's why:
In my research I talk about hexis (the physical manifestation and enactment of the norms and values of a milieu and habitus (the structures within a milieu that shape the behaviors of individuals). Habitus shapes hexis, and hexis is the embodiment of habitus. In the example of my driving this is exactly what we see. We see the local milieu of the respective places shaping my actions and behaviors. My actions and behaviors reflect the norms and values of those milieus. An insightful and useful example this is! Why? Because most of us can think of similar examples.

The curriculum that I am developing (Meta-threads) takes to heart the concepts of hexis and habitus and social theories of literacy and learning. By incorporating course content onto the bodies of students and flooding a milieu with content-laden bodies, we can reverse the flow effects of milieu-to-individual. We can reverse it so that individuals impact the milieu.

Part of the reason people in S. FL drive more aggressively is b/c they say everybody else driving that way. Same with C. IL. Now, I have a theory of why there are these differences and what it is that shapes these differences beyond the individual road behaviors of drivers. It has to do with values and ways of being. What my curriculum and my theory suggests is that individual bodily behavior (hexis) can trickle up to affect the behaviors, norms and values of an entire community.

As an example, a school that uses Meta-threads would have, on a daily basis, content circulating throughout the school outside the classrooms on the bodies of each member of the school. Students and teachers alike would be immersed in content. This encourages a different frame of mind. Why? Because pervasive images of the particular Meta-threads content demonstrates value - how much the school values said content (and it could be anything from anatomy to vocabulary to equations). This method sends a message not so much about what is valued (b/c obviously learning is valued) but how much that thing is valued. Beyond that, Meta-threads encourages learning beyond the walls of the classrooms where students can more freely play and experiment with content. Constant exposure builds content-consciousness (similar to what Michael Graves calls "word consciousness"). It is transportable. Easily accessible. It is bodily.

If every driver in S. FL had a "Slow Down" sticker pasted on the driver-side windshield, the effects of advertising suggest that this constant visual would eventually have an effect on driver/consumer behavior. Though it's a bit reductive, this is essentially the effect that Meta-threads curriculum theorizes to have on a school milieu.

Palin and Letterman

I was reminded by this post at the Oratorical Animal about some recent thoughts that have rumbled through my head about the Letterman and Palin hoopla.

If you watch the videos below you'll get to hear both Letterman and Palin in their own words (which I encourage you to always do, when possible - i.e. listen to/read original sources in disputes). The problem with Palin's response to Letterman is that it is disingenuous at best and dangerous at worst. Per the former: come on, Sarah. Nobody thought Dave was encouraging rape. NOBODY! That is simply ridiculous. However, per the former, Sarah's response was effective. She was pissed off about being the target of public critique/ridicule (which, like it or not, is part of being a public servant). So was her daughter, *Bristol* (the 18 year old; not Willow, the 14 year old). Ever since the '08 Presidential campaign when Sarah used her children as political pawns, Bristol has been a public figure. And now she appears to have accepted a place in the public spotlight of her own accord. It's cruel and unfair to be attacked as a person in the media. It is ideas and policy and behavior that should be rebuked/critiqued. But such is the nature of being a part of public spectacle. And Sarah Palin knows this. The reason Sarah Palin's response is abhorrent is because it is dishonest. She has taken an issue (i.e. her "slutty appearance" and Bristol getting "knocked up") and turned it around to make a vicious personal attack on David Letterman. True, Letterman started it. But if you aspire to be President of the United States of America, shouldn't we hold you to a higher standard than a late night comedian?

The problem as I see it is not that she responded (though that also demonstrates to me a reactionary mind-set, an inability to exhibit self-control). The problem is the way she responded. She used an effective strategy by destabilizing stasis, she has changed the issue. She changed the issue to be about "statutory rape." And she has done this dishonestly. Why dishonest? Because Letterman was not "encouraging rape." He is not a "threat to 14 year olds" (as Palin suggests). Letterman's jokes were in "poor taste." But he's a comedian. That's what comedian's do: they take the everyday and they make caricature of it. Palin is the one who twisted Letterman's words and applied this dangerous interpretation.

Is there a double-standard here? Yes. No doubt. But there's a double standard because each of these two people aspire to different things. We EXPECT Letterman to entertain us and say off-the-wall, off-color things. We EXPECT Palin to be honest and to react to attacks in a responsible way. One is an entertainer. One is a "leader."

Whether or not remarks such as Letterman's affect the self-esteem of women is NOT the issue (whether or not that's even true is debatable). He was making light of Bristol's pregnancy. In America sex sells (the Palin's certainly are capitalizing on it - Bristol is literally capitalizing on the sex she has had as a spokesperson for the abstinence movement). The Republican party bought into this mantra when they selected Palin as their vice-presidential candidate. By most expert accounts Palin was one of the least qualified women that the McCain campaign could have selected. But I digress. The Letterman-Palin debate is not about statutory rape, misogyny, or ad hominem attacks. The issue is about appropriate behavior and standards of behavior that are expected from public figures. I expect Palin to engage a hot-button political issue with honesty and not to twist or meddle with facts.

In case your not up, here's Letterman:


And here's Palin (fastforward to the 3:25 mark:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Don't fight unnecessary battles

Ugh, okay, so I'm about to erase an entire section from my methodology chapter. "Don't fight unnecessary battles, says the diss director. But I don't want the jist to be lost to the ether. So I'm pasting some of it here:

I would like to say a word about ethnography within the field of Composition and Rhetoric. In New Orleans, at the 2008 Conference on College Composition and Communication, there was a special panel on research and research methodology titled “Discussion on Strengthening the Research Culture within CCCCs.” This round table discussion was a featured discussion and consisted of some of the most prolific scholars in the field: Shirley Wilson Logan, Beverley Moss, David Russell, Anthony Pare, Cheryl Glenn, Deborah Brandt, Davida Charney and Geneva Smitherman. The conversation on that Friday afternoon centered around mentoring graduate students to be more rigorous and better prepared researchers by moving beyond theoretical discussions of methodology (which was the structure of all of my methodology courses within my various English departments) to a structure of doing research (which was my training experience with ethnography outside the field of English departments). One of the primary suggestions of the panel was to establish better mentoring relationships wherein students within the field performed their respective methodology in partnership with a mentor in the field. More hands-on coaching needs to occur as graduate students are learning how to become researchers.

In preparation for conducting the research for this project I relied on experiences and texts from outside the field of Comp/Rhet. And you will notice that, false though it may be, I am making a clear delineation between Comp/Rhet and Literacy Studies. Within Literacy Studies ethnographies abound. And many of those ethnographies (e.g. Ways With Words, Local Literacies, Social Literacies) have been performed by scholars trained within such fields as anthropology or sociology. I am not suggesting the Comp/Rhet has no ethnographies or that Comp/Rhet scholars cannot or should not be performing ethnography. I am suggesting, based on the conclusions of methodological stalwarts of the above mentioned panel, that for now some of the best models for conducting ethnography lay outside the borders of Comp/Rhet proper. The most notable ethnographer in the field, Ralph Cintron, is a case in point: when presenting (such as he did at the RSA Summer Institute in 2007) to rhetoricians he explicitly roots his authoritative ethos in anthropology. When presenting for anthropologists he claims the field of rhetoric as his disciplinary homeland. Though he does this lightheartedly to garner a few chuckles, the point is clear: ethnography is not a native methodology of Comp/Rhet. I would argue that even one of the field’s central texts on the issue, Wendy Bishop’s Ethnographic Writing Research, is not fully about ethnography. It’s about ethnographic methods, how to do research that is ethnographic in nature.

Meta-threads.com - store

The inventory is in!!
The online store is coming soon:

Photography (Literacy Logs) as Research Method

I'm currently reviewing several articles that discuss the use of photography as a research method in qualitative research. Some of the principles called for in two of the articles happen to be exactly the approach I used with my photo literacy logs. "The utility of the camera in qualitative inquiry" by English reviews some of the criticisms of using photography as a research method. English discusses how shifting perspectives of qualitative research are (as of 1988) diminishing the perceived drawbacks of photography as a research method (English 8). He also discusses three perspectives on "reality" and how the camera does or does not record "objective reality," "perceived reality" and reality as constructed in the minds of individual viewers of a photo (9). He concludes that:

Qualitative researchers make no such assumption and posit there are no "final metacriteria" (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, pp. 110-128). They make the still camera's limitations an asset rather than a liability because they proffer that generalizations cannot be freed from the human context from which they sprang. The limitations of the still camera in research are in part the limitations of the research paradigm employed. (9)

English reviews the criticisms of photography and then explains how photography, especially if used by researchers when following four principles, overcomes these perceived flaws.

The four principles that English calls for are "strategies to minimize error in the creation of photographic visual images" (13). They are:
1. Use multiple photographers with standardized still cameras and lenses.
2. Develop shooting scripts
3. Triangulating the data
4. Randomizing exposures and camera angles (14).

In my project I:
1. Used multiple photographers (i.e. 8 of the players) with standardized still cameras and lenses (i.e. they all used the the same Kodak disposable cameras).
2. Each player was given the same instructions (i.e. script) for capturing literacy events from their daily lives.
3. The photo data was triangulated by fieldnotes and interviews wherein the photos themselves were used as prompts for questioning.
4. Exposures and camera angles were randomized naturally in that each player photographed according to the script in his own way.

In "Playschool in pictures: Children’s photographs as a research method" by
Einarsdottir, she talks about the importance of giving voice to the subjects of qualitative research. In the case of her study she talks specifically about considering the legitimacy of children's perspectives, ideas and feedback about their experiences in their own lives. She concludes that, "The results show that
using cameras and children’s photos is a notable method to use when seeking children’s perspectives on their life in an early childhood setting" (523).

The relevance of Einarsdottir's article to my method, in particular, is that putting cameras in the hands of the players provided a view of their lives from within their settings from their perspectives. Furthermore, in some cases this method allows access to settings that are otherwise private and to which the researcher may not ever be able to have access to (I'm sure I'm not the first to point out this advantage). There are some similarities between the photo literacy log approach and the written literacy logs approach that the original design called for. The biggest major difference, however, is that photos give you (the researcher) an image. With photos you can literally see literacy events from their perspectives as opposed to reading their descriptions of their literacy events (which is complicated by the fact that their description is itself a literacy event).

One of the best photos from the database came from one of the players who captured a moment from one of the team's study halls. It was a typical moment that was repeated numerous times throughout individual study halls throughout the year. For that reason, in the chapter on Surveillance, I call the photo a "prototypical" chunk of data (b/c it encapsulates a scene that was repeated in interviews, fieldnotes and in artifacts). The only problem with the photo below is that I had to edit it. The photo has been photo-shopped with three separate effects in order to shield the identities and likenesses of the players. I've been meaning to post this photo for a while, but it has only recently been approved by my committee for publication (again, b/c of anonymity issues).

In the Surveillance chapter I explain the significance of the body posture of the central figure, Coach Danny (pseudonym). He is at the center of the study hall where he efficiently surveills the activities around him - a la Foucault's panopticon. Futhermore, Coach Danny is literally draping himself all over Charles' personal space: Coach Danny's left arm is very casually supporting his resting head as he hangs onto Charles' terminal; Coach Danny's right arm is invading his work space to touch the paper on Charles' desk; Coach Danny's foot is propped up on the back of Charles' chair; Coach Danny's open leg, reaching arms and dangling head are draped all over his space and are in fact invading Charles' space as he appropriates it and pushes his authoritative self so that he is nearly cohabitates with Charles.
This photo is absolutely beautiful. It encapsulates superbly an essential element of the surveillance I observed as a researcher. And I don't think it's an image I could ever have captured myself. Furthermore, the image of surveillance is from the players' perspective. This is what they see.

Though I'm a lil hesitant to say this publicly, I'm pretty sure the image below is my single favorite piece of data from the entire database.



List of references graciously provided by Sandra Abrams:
Cappello, M. & Hollingsworth, S. (2008). Literacy inquiry and pedagogy through a photographic lens. Language Arts, 85(6), 442-449.

Einarsdottir, J. (2005). Playschool in pictures: Children’s photographs as a research method. Early Child Development and Care, 175(6), 523-541.

English, F. (1988). The utility of the camera in qualitative inquiry. Educational Researcher, 19(4), 8–15

Preskill, H. (1995). The use of photography in evaluating school culture. Qualitative Studies in Education, 8, 183–193.

Prosser, J. (1998). Image-based research: A sourcebook for the qualitative researcher. London: Falmer.

Walker, R. (1993). Finding a silent voice for the researcher: Using photographs in evaluation and research. In M. Schratz (Ed.), Qualitative voices in educational research (pp. 72–92). London: Falmer.

Inspired?

There's a story of a successful business woman I've heard several times from a close friend of mine. The gist of it is that this woman had a good idea but accompanying the good idea was no small bit of hesitancy to act on the idea. So good was the idea that her boss, whose encouragement alone wasn't enough to move her, fired her and thus forced her to pursue this idea. Several years later her business employs scores of people and serves many more.

It is said that necessity breeds invention. Losing her job necessitated that our successful business woman act on her idea. There are other things, too, I would say, that breed invention. And one of those things is an ability and/or a willingness to take risks.

I have a good idea. One that can do more than simply put bread on my table. It's the sort of idea and opportunity for which, all those years ago, when I started my Masters and then my Ph.D., I hunted, sought after. And the idea has potential residual effects that will resonate beyond the business idea itself. It's an opportunity to be able to be an educator in an alternative and creative way.

The time is right, I feel; the moment kairotic. Inspiration, sweat, preparation, opportunity: all these things may be converging. It's a nerve wrecking moment, an exciting moment! [insert butterfly-in-the-belly feelings here] After all these years of preparation, to even consider forgoing security in order to pursue the unknown, is perhaps a little less than prudent. But I ask, Which is the worse to live with: rejection or regret?

I've always been a have-my-cake-and-eat-it-too sort of soul. Maybe that's because I'm more of a Page and Plant sort of philosopher as opposed to a Frost type of thinker. There are two paths we can go down. And, in the long run, there's still time to change the road you're on. We don't have to stand and look and choose a road that wants wear with the worry that way leads on to way and that the other option will be buried in the undergrowth. True, tomorrow may not be promised us. So take the road you want to live on, the road you want to travel today. Don't come to the end of a long-traveled road and look back with regret. So say I.

This is my thought process. This is what I'm thinking. At this moment of my life I'm feeling...something. I feel the time has come where I am able, where it is possible, to make the sort of mark I believed my higher ed training would facilitate. All along I thought it would be within an already established system. But it's likely not. The path that has chosen me appears to weave elsewhere. And in less secure places, to be sure. Now is the moment - to take what is both a small first step and a giant leap...

NCAA - Tax Exemption and "Educational" mission

The NCAA is a behemoth, with reported revenues in excess of $614,000,000. It's nothing new (Alesia, "NCAA's Tax Exemption Called into Question," Indianapolis Star, Mar. 11, 2006) for the NCAA's tax exempt status to get called into question. What I gather from these challenges to Miles Brand and the NCAA is that the questions are due, in large part, to the amount of revenue generated. And that, in and of itself, is not a problem - especially since the NCAA reportedly distributes something like +97% of it's revenues back to the member institutions. The brow-raising comes as a result of a perceived conflict between the highly lucrative nature of the "amateurism" of NCAA sports, the role of this lucrative "amateurism" in relation to academics, and the NCAA's stated mission. NCAA.org reports that

Our purpose is to govern competition in a fair, safe, equitable and sportsmanlike manner, and to integrate intercollegiate athletics into higher education so that the educational experience of the student-athlete is paramount.

And based on the data available from the NCAA (e.g. budgets, distribution schedules, scholarship programs, educational programs, etc.) their actions appear to be very much in line with their words. Kudos to them!

So why the skeptically-squinted eyes and scrunchy noses sniffing at suspicious-smelling air? I think it has to do with this notion of "amateurism" - the amateur status of NCAA student-athletes. Millions upon millions (more like billions if you include everything from jersey sales to video games to gambling) of dollars are made off the labor and sweat equity of the student-athletes. And, yes, the student-athletes are rewarded with scholarships for their collegiate education. I would suggest - as would all the scrunchy noses and squinted eyes - that something seems not quite right about the relationship between the collective labors of student-athletes' and the revenues distribution.

I've suggested before that a student-athlete organization (something like an NFL Players Association or NBA players' association? [which, oddly, they don't call "unions"...hmm...]) might lead to a more democratic approach to securing broader, deeper rights for these exploited laborers (yes, they are laborers exchanging their work for scholarships/pay that are furthering the enrichment of their institutions, conferences AND private industries (e.g. EASports). Because, again, oddly, not too many people dispute that student-athletes (especially those in the revenue-generating sports) aren't exploited.

No system is perfect, especially one as large as the NCAA (there are 54,000 NCAA student-athletes). But...

Obama's 2012-2020 Campaign Strategy

Here's a radical suggestion, a radical political strategy:

What if Barack Obama decides NOT to run in 2012 for a second term? Instead, from the Presidential podium, endorses, oh, say, H. Clinton...? Then, in 2016 or 2020, run again...? Naturally it would depend on how well the rest of this first term goes, but, well, that would be interesting.

Just thinking out loud. And, really, based on MY perception of Obama's character and "political ambition" and commitment to service, it doesn't seem like such a radical suggestion.

Closing the Achivement Gap: Discipline and Surveillance

David Brookswrites today about a charter school success story in Harlem. The piece, "The Harlem Miracle", discusses the unheard of success that this school, "Harlem's Children's Zone, has had at closing the achievement gap between black and white students. Also, it discusses the class (or socioeconomic rather) issues embedded in such an undertaking.

In his article Brooks cites "Whatever it Takes" by Paul Tough and "Sweating the Small Stuff" by David Whitman as accounts and surveys of the Harlem School as good reading for more details on how these results were achieved and how the school is structured. I haven't yet read these articles, but based on Brooks' article and his synopses of Tough's and Whitman's it sounds like the success of Harlem's Children's Zone shares many similarities with the "educational technology" that was uncovered in my research - an approach to education that instills discipline and an ethics of behavior through surveillance and control.

Check out Brooks' column and compare it to the discussion section of my chapter on Surveillance as an educational technology:

The educational technology of surveilling instilled positive literacy habits. The subjects in this study were constantly watched, their behaviors were controlled and their activities were disciplined to be of a certain type. The objectives of this system were to facilitate success for the student-athletes in both academics and athletics. Because their participation in athletics was dependent on their ability to achieve certain academic benchmarks as determined by both X University and the NCAA, the athletics department had a vested interest in making sure the guys were doing their school work. For these athletes – and I would say all NCAA student-athletes – success in academics and athletics go hand-in-hand. The educational technology that has developed over the years on a national level within the Discourse community of collegiate athletics is the type of support system that has been elaborated in this chapter. On both a national level and at X University, student-athletes graduate at higher rates than non-student-athletes. As I pointed out above, at X University student-athletes had a graduate rate of 76% over the course of six years from 1999-2006. Non-student-athletes at X University had a graduation rate of less than 35% over the same time period (the graduation rate over a four year period was less than 25%). Obviously there are other factors that impact these numbers, but two things that cannot be overlooked are the educational technology employed by the athletic department to surveil and control the literate activities of the student-athletes as well as the commitment that these team members had to their social group and identities as student-athletes. The second of these two variables is what made the educational technology of surveillance and control possible in the first place. These student-athletes agreed to be part of and subject to surveillance and control by their own choice and free-will. More or less these guys knew what they were committing to when they decided to sign their letters of intent with X University.

The strong group/social bond that developed as a part of their experiences within this educational technology should also be of interest to composition, literacy and education scholars. The way these guys engaged in acts of reading, writing and talk about text demonstrate the highly social nature of literacy even in the face of controlling mechanisms that would stifle social collaboration.

In this data there was a direct connection between the system of surveillance and the ways of engaging in physical literacy activities. By and large, the effects of surveillance technology affected literacy habits in positive ways. Like Foster, based on my analysis of the data for this study, my impression is that the surveillance technology used to discipline and control the literate behaviors of these subjects could be beneficial to non-student-athletes as well. Generating or taking advantage of a centralizing identity, social group or team-oriented activity in which a group of non-student-athletes are deeply invested would be the key to facilitating a similar surveillance technology. Compliance with or submission to such a system is key. The effectiveness of the system of surveillance that these subjects experienced was dependent upon the subjects’ commitment to being and identifying as student-athletes. Replicating the intensity of commitment to The Team would be an important part of creating an effective educational technology like the one these guys experienced.

Transfering Pedagogies: athletic models for the classroom

A continuation of this conversation:

How this might manifest in a classroom is by reviewing drafts of student papers on an overhead projector. The parallel in the domain of athletics is watching films of games and reviewing/critiquing performances against opponents. Reviewing student writing in this form does several things: First, the author has a real audience, which means there is something at stake for the writer. Students are more invested in their writing when their performance is critiqued publicly.

Second, the public nature of the feedback process makes it a social event; writing comes out of the shadows, out of isolation; the notion of the solitary author is disrupted.

Third, putting student papers on the overhead and encouraging other classmates to participate in the review/revision process facilitates a Zone of Proximal Development where stronger writers can chime in with their thoughts on how to respond to errors and teacher comments. In this same vein, a ZPD is created when students can see the work of their peers – especially stronger writers – who model and provide examples for each other.

Fourth, the feedback – which often ends up being mini-lessons on anything from comma usage to conversations on arrangement to lessons on logos, etc – is within a context; the feedback is situated within the students’ own writing. Much like the basketball players reviewing their performance during film sessions, the context makes the lessons more meaningful and directly applicable to individuals but within the specific boundaries of a particular performance and within the context of their team too. This is similar to the principle of context that we see in the theme of Breakdown.

Finally, putting student papers on the board allows students to visualize how to approach the revision process; they are hearing and, more importantly, seeing how to re-write and what re-writing means. The process of putting student papers on the board is similar to the process of watching film that student-athletes experience in another way in that it makes the feedback/critique process agonisitic: the process of “correcting” is not one way, it is not antagonistic. There is push and pull from multiple contributors.

Gesture & Thought, Body & Mind: Pedagogical Applications

I've picked up a book that has long been sitting on my table awaiting a read - David McNeill's Gesture and Thought. It's a relatively dense text, but so far it's worth the efforts. In addition to the physical-ness of conversations about gesture, in addition to the explicit, scientific connections made between body and mind (i.e. syncretism) in communicative and thinking acts, one of the things that draws me to work on gesture is the interdisciplinarity of the conversation. As McNeill points out, gesture studies simultaneously intersects with such fields as humanities, linguistics, psychology, social science, neuropsychology, and computer engineering/computer science (15).

The main point of the book "Is that language is inseparable from imagery. The imagery in question is embodied in the gestures that universally and automatically occur with speech. Such gestures are a necessary component of speaking and thinking" (15). McNeill goes on to say that, in continuing in the Vygotskian tradition yet contrary to his initial hypothesis, "gesture-first theory" is inaccurate. Vygotsky (and later others) proposed that historically/evolutionarily gesture precedes language and thought (to be more precise - that gesture is the materialization of first thoughts). A frequently cited (by me, anyway) passage from Vygotsky that articulates the gesture-first theory comes from the conclusion of Thought and Language:

The connection between thought and word, however, is neither performed nor constant. It emerges in the course of development, and itself evolves. To the biblical, “In the beginning was the Word,” Goethe makes Faust reply, “In the beginning was the deed.” The intent here is to detract from the value of the word, but we can accept this version if we emphasize it differently: In the beginning was the deed. The word was not the beginning—action was there first; it [the word] is the end of development, crowning the deed. (Vygotsky, Thought and Language, 255)

One of the first articles in Composition Studies to explicitly work against the mind-body bifurcation that infuses not just our training practices but the way we think about academia in general and reading-composing in particular was Kristie Fleckenstein's "Writing Bodies" (College English 1999). She, too, cites the above Vygotsky passage. The reason for the wide circulation of this oft-overlooked portion of Vygotsky's theory is that most people focus on his arguments for social nature of development and learning. This, too, was a radical idea at one time for it illustrated or disabused, rather, the notion of the solitary mind. David McNeill's work furthers Vygotsky's initial theory by using research methods (slow motion video replay) that were unavailable to Vygotsky. What's more, McNeill comes to conclude that Vygotsky (and others) got it wrong. Gesture did not come first; speech and gesture evolved together. Here's McNeill:

Contrary to the gesture-first theory, a model that has become popular with Corballis (2002), I am arguing that evolution selected eh ability to combine speech and gesture under a meaning, and that speech and gesture emerged in evolution together. This combination was the essential property evolution chose; there would not have been a gesture-first step. Just as speech could not have evolved without gesture, gesture could not have evolved without speech. (20-21)

This syncratic theory (as I shall call it) of gesture-speech demonstrates the interconnectedness of mind and body. And it is further evidence/argument for the sense-perceiving/thinking experiential body articulated in Merleau-Ponty's philosophy (which McNeill references at several points) of phenomenology.

Research such as that of McNeill's appeals to me for the further grounding it gives to my research on the physicality of literacy. We think with our bodies. We learn with our bodies. Our senses and sensing bodies cannot be extricated from our thinking. Or from what we think of as thinking and thought. The intellect does not exist only in the mind. This is crucial for education, and it is significantly pertinent in other domains of life too.

The concept-language-imagery triangle exists on the plane of the body. This is the basis for the childrens book I'm writing. It is the basis for the vocabulary curriculum that I'm developing (aka Meta-threads). It is also, as I demonstrated in a recent talk at UC Berkeley, a core component of my approach to teaching writing (though I would argue that a more accurate description of my pedagogy would be something like "Social Play Based on Breakdown Technology" [see my dissertation for an elaboration]). Part of how I am coming to understand my research - or, rather, how I'm trying to facilitate understanding of my research to others - is through concrete applications and specific (classroom) activities or assignments.

More to come...

NCAA Revenues, Expenses and Profitability

There is an inherent problem with discussions ofstudies such as 2002-03 NCAA Revenues and Expenses of D-I and D-II Intercollegiate Athletic Programs. It is a problem that purely academic units suffer from as well. That is, trying to measure the value of higher education to our society in terms of dollars. Higher education is not designed as a for-profit system. The problematic moves towards a corporate model for higher ed have been negatively impacting higher ed for a long time.

I don't know the data, but my guess is that similar research on academic departments would turn up high expenses and low profitability - i.e. that they, like athletic departments, are across the board running at a deficit. But, again, institutional profitability isn't the point of higher ed. And yet most academics, when they go to battle in the culture wars of athletics v. academics, will often cite the economic drain that athletic departments create for their institutions (e.g. frequently cited are coaches' salaries - which are not, for the most part, paid directly by the institution). The problem as I see it is not one of revenue v. expenses or profitability v. deficit. The mind-body culture wars are struggles over state, federal or institutional resources because each side sees their objectives as inherently opposed to those of the other. I would argue that by embracing a more agonistic relationship, there could be significant advances in intellectual and athletic methods of training.

I do think that athletic departments are possibly to blame for being more myopic and close-minded to letting "outsiders" (i.e. academics) into their domains. And I think that is an additional source of resentment. Athletic departments add a lot of value to a university in ways that go beyond the court or field of play. Encouraging more open and interdisciplinary relationships between the department of the body (athletics) and the department of the mind (academics) would not only be a more natural (i.e. syncretic) existence for each, but it would increase the number and percentage of athletic department beneficiaries.

More thoughts to come...

Student-athlete graduation rates

...and yet, NCAA D-I student-athletes graduate at a higher rate (64%) than non-student-athletes (62%).

Various other NCAA reports can be found here.

NCAA Eligibility Rules: Enervating student-athletes

For undisclosed reasons I've been reading this,NCAA Manual Bylaw 14.8.1 Additional Waivers for Eligibility Requirements.

Here we have an example of how the NCAA disempowers student-athletes. Rule (or Bylaw) 14.5 states that student-athletes are ineligible to compete for one academic year if they transfer from one NCAA D-I institution (i.e. "member institution") to another NCAA D-I institution*. Here is the rule:

14.5 TRANSFER REGULATIONS
14.5.1 Residence Requirement—General Principle. A student who transfers (see Bylaw 14.5.2) to a member institution from any collegiate institution is required to complete one full academic year of residence at the certifying institution before being eligible to compete for or to receive travel expenses from the member institution (see Bylaw 16.8.1.2), unless the student satisfies the applicable transfer requirements or qualifies for an exception as set forth in this bylaw. In baseball and basketball, a transfer student-athlete who satisfies the applicable transfer requirements or qualifies for an exception as set forth in this section, but initially enrolls as a full-time student after the first term of the academic year shall not be eligible for competition until the ensuing academic year. (Revised: 1/10/91 effective 8/1/91,4/27/00 effective 8/1/01 for those student-athletes first entering the certifying institution on or after 8/1/01, 5/19/08)

You'll notice that in the title of this post I tag this eligibility rule as "enervating." I might also have labeled it as enfeebling, undermining, weakening, emasculating. The point is that this rule disallows student-athletes to pursue their academic-athletic potential at another institution. The rule disallows a student-athlete from being able to apply her abilities for one academic year. Now, granted, the rule does not preclude a student-athlete from access to scholarship aid during this year of athletic participation. She can, in fact, pursue her academics during this one year athletic probation. But why must she sit on the sidelines for a year? What is the impetus for this rule?

Under what conditions would a student-athlete want to transfer? Consider this: If a student-athlete likes her coach, feels she is being treated fairly and is otherwise happy with her conditions, would she want to transfer? Most likely, this happy-go-lucky young woman would not want to leave her fortuitous circumstances. In this case the transfer/eligibility rule is of no consequence. It's a moot point.

Now, if a student-athlete has a strained relationship with her coach (or teammates or support staff or the institution itself), if she feels she is being treated unfairly or is otherwise unhappy with her conditions why would she want to stay? Most likely she would NOT want to stay. She would want to transfer. However, if she decides to leave what she sees as an abusive relationship she will be punished. She will be prohibited from competing in her chosen sport for one full year. The fact that she has to sit out a year of competition - and lose a year of eligibility in the process - makes her less marketable to other coaches/programs. This is something of a double-whammy. Not only is she penalized directly, but indirectly her market-value, her worth to another program, is diminished because of this one year penalty. It's a burden that some programs/coaches do not want to carry. Why use up a scholarship spot for a player that cannot compete for a year? More specifically, why invest resources in a year of ineligibility for which you will not be able to see a return (compare this to a redshirted scholarship athlete in whom a program would be able to reap returns on). In essence, then, this rule also penalizes the programs/team that takes in the transfer student-athlete. This rule punishes a coach for assisting a student-athlete from leaving what is presumably an abusive (or at least an unhappy) relationship.

Why? Who does this benefit? Who does this put at a disadvantage?

A coach can abandon his relationship with his players and his institution (even during the middle of a contract) and be eligible to coach right away. So can an assistant coach. Faculty members can leave one institution and be lecturing at another within a matter of weeks. Administrators, non-student-athletes, support staff - all of these folks would not be barred from applying their skills at their new institution. But our unhappy young woman would be put in the corner for a year.

So why does this rule exist? It has to do with issues of stability and control. For the sake of the continuity of a sports program - especially successful programs - there has to be stability. High turnover rates in personnel leads to the erosion of a coach's power and the disintegration of a program's/institution's reputation. This rule is in place for the well-being of coaches and institutions.

Student-athletes' rights are secondary to those of coaches and institutions - especially as they relate to high-profile, revenue-generating sports. If a student-athlete is dissatisfied with her education, with her sports mentoring, with her geographic location, with anything, too bad. This is the message of NCAA Bylaw 14.5.

I don't want to too much boo-hoo the student-athletes because they clearly get a pretty sweet deal. Student-athletes experience advantages (for a price) that non-athletes cannot even fathom (at least at the larger D-I schools). Part of the reason student-athletes have so few rights is because they do not demand them. Granted, organizing for such rights would be a massive and difficult undertaking - especially if it has the potential for degreasing some very lucrative machine wheels - but securing basic rights has never been easy for any oppressed group.

What does the NCAA gain by having this rule?
What does the NCAA lose by amending this rule so as to give more rights to the student-athlete?
Does the NCAA exist for the sole purpose of protecting "member institutions?" Or do they have obligations to student-athletes as well? Obviously this last question is somewhat hyperbolic, because, in fact, the NCAA does have programs that support and benefit the athletes. But in circumstances of conflicting interests such as moments of transfer, the NCAA sides against the student-athletes.

*The "exceptions" of which this rule speaks includes such things as "times of national emergency" or "institutions that have suffered extraordinary personnel losses from one or more of their intercollegiate athletics teams due to accident or illness of a disastrous nature" (e.g. plane crashes) (see Bylaw 14.8).

NCAA Graduation Rates: The function of surveillance

The effects of surveillance and control was one of the major themes/findings in my research on the literacy of one team of NCAA D-II basketball players. In my discussion of surveillance I use the work of educational anthropologist Kevin M. Foster. He argues that a system of surveillance and control (which he calls "panopticonics") helps structure positive behaviors that leads to both academic and athletic success for student-athletes. The system of surveillance and control that these s-a's experience is not only good for them, but the model (which he calls an "educational technology") should be replicated for non-student-athletes. To an extent, I happen to agree with some of Foster's conclusions. I think the educational technology of a system of surveillance has a lot of positives. For those of you who are not familiar with my writing about surveillance - real quick - this educational technology is a system of support and mandated study-halls and class attendance that are overseen by coaches and support staff. The system is set up to ensure that s-a's are doing what they're supposed to do. And, yes, there are repercussions for non-compliance. Obviously the technology is not perfect. It is problematic. Despite the problems and flaws, both Foster and I see it as a potentially beneficial addition to wider educational practices (one that I was a part of in a different context in a bridge program that successfully matriculated and graduated underachieving high school students).

As I begin to wrap up the writing for this project I'm beginning to be able to put some distance between some of the findings and my biased(?) thinking about those findings. Which is to say, I'm starting to be able to be or think more critically about the implications and applications of my research - how it relates to other research and to reality (which are sometimes the same and sometimes not). One of the challenges of researching student-athletes is that things like graduation rates can be convoluted. Only recently, for example, has the NCAA started to release graduation rates data (2008 was the first time I believe). There have been critics of NCAA academic standards who (subtly) question the statistics released by the NCAA. A 78% graduation rate is pretty high, but that's what the NCAA claims their study would for D-I student-athletes. And that's for *all* sports. The revenue sports of football, basketball and baseball (all men's sports) have had notoriously (or, as the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Sports says, "scandalously") low academic standards and achievement.

What does this have to do with the findings in my research? And what does it have to do with surveillance and control? My experiences (and a small bit of my research) demonstrates that these revenue generating sports are more highly controlled and surveilled than the "Olympic" sports (i.e. non revenue generating). Yet they have lower graduation rates. The money sports have more (academic!) resources poured into them, but to less effect. The dots I'm connecting here may lead you to believe that I would argue against the resource-rich educational technology that these money sports consume. However, the issue is not so simple. There are *a lot* of factors that are not accounted for in a quantitative analysis of these sports' graduation rates. There are social, class, gender, racial, and equality issues that effect the data - issues that cannot be fully included in quantitative analysis. Johnathan Kozol has written prolifically about educational inequality - on the still separate and unequal system of American education. He doesn't focus on student-athletes in particular; this is more in anticipation of the counterargument that student-athletes who do get high profile scholarship opportunities are somehow receiving privileges that it is then their responsibility to nurture. But that's a different, wrongheaded attitude that is for another time. Back to what is more my point: Perhaps 60-something percent graduation rate isn't so bad. Or, perhaps, there are still some deep-seated flaws with the system of surveillance that ensures eligibility but still doesn't facilitate graduation. For example, one of the things NCAA President Miles Brand praises are higher admission standards. These higher admission standards ensure that better prepared students are matriculating. You see the problem here, right? Higher admission standards continue to neglect the problems of struggling student-athletes by preventing access in the first place. It preempts the issue of low graduation rates by making access prohibitive.

So what? What's the solution? Well, for one, restructure the academic support systems. There are some sound theories of learning that, unbeknown to the coaches and support staff, circulate throughout the educational technologies of surveillance and control (and here's where I don't reveal some of those things so that instead you would hire me as a consultant). Another issue is and always will be money. Duh. The money sports are about money. Not necessarily in terms of revenue generated, however. High profile money sports (especially winning ones) increase the value of an institution even when they're not bringing in profits. One of the things I would suggest is more profit sharing among member institutions. This is a problematic claim for me to make because I don't know the details of the NCAA's revenue sharing scheme. I know they do pay out money to, e.g., Men's NCAA Basketball tournament participants and to their conferences. But the payouts are drops in the bucket compared to what they take in. This is a complex suggestion that would need to be more fully fleshed out elsewhere. My third suggestion is for athletic departments to have a closer relationship with the academic side of their institution, to decrease what William Broussard calls the "balkanization" of student-athletes. One of the things my research has revealed is that there are educational training practices of athletes that are beneficial to non-student-athletes as well.

Tortue: It Affects American Ethics and Morality

Despite my weariness I'm breaking my streak of silence on most things political to talk about torture. Much ado has been made about Obama's decision to release Bush administration legal documents related to torture. Obama has said that CIA operatives who were following the "legal" orders of their superiors will not be prosecuted. High-ranking officials who facilitated the legalization of crimes against humanity, however, may be susceptible to indictments and prosecution by the US Attorney General.

I'm confused about the outrage. Why are there Americans who oppose equal and just treatment for our leaders? Do they bleed differently than the average citizen? Are their decisions and actions somehow superior to other human beings on this planet? They are not gods; they are not about reproach; they are not above just and equal treatment.

One of the problems is that not only were the actions that culminated in the legalization of harsh interrogation tactics illegal and immoral, but the effect of these collected actions is that it released a poisonous model into the American culture for American civilians, servicemen, and other leaders (in private, public and corporate leadership roles) to follow. And follow them they have.

It is outrageous - yes, you should be at a maximum level of *rage* - for a nation conceived in liberty and founded on justice and equality to continue to snub its nose at the world in superior fashion. Some of the actions of the Bush administration have been the most shameful moments and darkest deeds of any perpetuated by our nation since my birth.

Shame on those who composed the torture memos.
Shame on those who facilitated torture.
Shame on those who tortured.
Shame on those who justify and defend torture.
And shame on us if we do not seek justice for these crimes.

Physical Effects of the Literacy of Surveillance

It has been a while since I've posted a substantive chunk from my diss. I thought I'd hit you all with an update. Here's the revised intro that I recently completed for Chapter Four - "Paper and Pen and Surveillance: The Physical Effects of the Literacy of Surveillance."

[“Panopticonics: The Control and Surveillance of Black Female Athletes in a Collegiate Athletic Program”] is a Foucauldian description and analysis of the circumstances by which, during the tenure of my ethnographic research at Midwestern University, black female student athletes' identities were shaped, as well as the implications of the formation process for their academic achievement. It describes the MU women's athletic program as a modern-day panopticon and describes how it functioned with precision to maximize participants' athletic and academic potential through surveillance, control, and discipline. (Kevin Foster, "Panopticonics" 300-301)

Will: But I think that a big reason why they do that, also, and why they might have the paper and the pen is because they want you to know that they’re keeping track of everything you do and you gotta take care of business because they’re gonna be checking you every single study hall.

Me: So do you think that sort of checking up – do you think that shapes the way you or any of the other guys study or affects the way you work?

Will: Yeah. I think it definitely does because I think whenever you know that you have someone watching over your shoulder, it’s gonna give you that extra motivation to get the good grades. Especially with someone like Coach, you know that if you don’t meet his expectations there’s gonna be consequences.

The system of surveillance and control by means of paper and pen seen in Will’s interview excerpt is carefully and consciously crafted by Coach and his staff. It is effectively designed to shape behaviors, to discipline conformity to “his expectations.” It is a seemingly small thing, but the presence of the paper and pen reinforces the idea that “they’re checking you every single study hall” and that “if you don’t meet his [Coach’s] expectations there’s gonna be consequences.” The constant presence of the paper and the pen is an example of a literacy event shaping both literacy activities and literacy practices. At each study hall or basketball practice the immediate effect of the ever-present paper and pen is to determine and shape specific activities – e.g. ball handling drills or reading; writing or group studying for classes. The paper and pen are equivalent to “talk about” a text in that the text itself communicates a message to the guys. The ever-present paper and pen has the disciplining effect of shaping literacy practices and habits. The guys know that the paper and pen is going to be present to record or determine their activities, so, over the course of time, their activities get shaped into habits and their study hall behaviors become an unconscious way of being when in that setting – i.e. practices.

In the ecology of my subjects, the constant circulation of documents – in addition to the near constant presence of coaching and support staff – systematically functioned in a fashion similar to the “modern day panopticon” that Kevin Foster describes in his 2003 article (301). The panopticon is the structural design of prisons/hospitals described by Foucault as having a disciplining effect on subjects (Foucault Discipline and Punish 1979). The design of the panopticon is such that the watcher can systematically observe subjects – some times even without the subjects’ awareness or knowledge of the surveillance – and discipline aberrant or undesirable behavior. Time subjected to this system (which Foster calls “panopticonics” – i.e. the systematic application of surveilling) instills in the subjects a sense that they are being constantly watched, and, as a result, they become disciplined/controlled to behave according to the expectations of their watchers. In the case of Foster’s subjects, Black female athletes were disciplined, controlled and surveilled in order to “maximize partipants’ athletic and academic potential” (301). In the case of my subjects, as Will explains, they were disciplined, controlled and surveilled to “meet [Coach’s] expectations” – a notably vague end.

As the opening epigraphs demonstrate, this chapter is an examination and analysis of the theme of Surveillance that developed from my database. The most conducive format for presenting the data is to do so, yet again, by domains. While athletic, academic and social domains serve as the organizing concept, I want to remind you of the fuzzy nature of this classification schema. Will’s opening epigraph is a case in point: it is the subjects’ athletics coach who is overseeing their academic work. The consequences for not meeting Coach’s (athletic, academic and social) expectations are dolled out in the gymnasium, but the punishment might be for non-athletic related activities. Coach oversaw the activities in all three domains. At one point or another all three domains converged in the space of the gymnasium and/or the library. As you can see, the crossing back and forth between (i.e. the blurring of) the domains schema complicates the classification system.

The reason for examining surveillance as a theme is because surveillance was a mechanism for controlling and disciplining the subject with documents; surveillance was a literacy event. More importantly, and more significant to composition and literacy scholars, the system of surveillance (which I’ll later term an “educational technology”) affected the ways that the subjects read and composed; surveillance determined their literacy practices.

Feel free to comment. Also, there's a super (SUPER!) cool photo from one of my subject's photo literacy logs that is serving as the quintessential center piece of data for the chapter. It really is a glorious piece of data, illustrating and embodying every point that I argue in the chapter. It's like a fist-sized gold nugget. I'm debating whether or not to publish it here on my blog. It appears in the diss. But I'm not sure it should circulate on the web. Yet. Can anybody imagine that it would violate IRB at all? The ethics? I mean, I have IRB approval... My gut says it's acceptable (and my adviser has no reservations about me publishing the photos). Soooo....Any thoughts on this, dear readers?

Reporting on a review of Gang Leader for a Day by Sudhir Venkatesh

The scathing review of Sudhir Venkatesh's book, Gang Leader for a Day: A Rogue Sociologist Takes to the Streets by Tenured Radical probably deserves more attention than it will get. I note it here as a way of adding to my incessantly growing list of ethical violations for personal gain. The ethical disturbances of Mr. Venkatesh appear to have actually contributed to literal bodily harm of other human beings.

Though less significant, I can take offense as an ethnographer; Venkatesh's methodological impurity reaches beyond just his "subjects." It affects an entire method and field even.

Physicality of literacy - practical application for WPAs

There's a useful (for me) conversation about assessment, outcomes and portfolios that's been circulating on the WPA-L the past few days. The thread, "Discussing Portfolios with social scientists," has had minimal input. But a recent post by Bob Cummings got me to thinkin about the application/implication of some of my research to assessment.

First an excerpt from Cummings' post:

I helped devise a plan which might work for you now. We are now asking students to write a short essay at the end of the semester which reflects on one particular outcome in the course. The student chooses that outcome from all of the outcomes listed on the syllabus. Since our plan had already chosen Bloom's taxonomy as a measure of cognition, the essay prompt invites students to first restate the outcome in their own words, to then analyze the outcome in terms of their learning experience, to point to artifacts in the course as evidence of having achieved the outcome, and then to assess the overall significance of the learning event using their own values. Our faculty team then assesses the writing according to our rubric, providing feedback to students individually and the teachers in aggregate.

The assessment (claims to) measures cognition in relation to the outcomes. We know that this is a feasible endeavor. Even a very practical and useful activity. What I (and my research) would like to suggest, though, is that cognition is only part of the pancake (like they say, "no matter how thin, every pancake has two sides"): the physical reading and writing habits that develop as a result of the portfolio method are, potentially, equally revelatory (if not more important). I've stated elsewhere that how one produces (and how one learns to produce) is more tranformative than what one produces. And I think that measuring cognitive outcomes can demonstrate this point. If there are positive cognitive gains, it's likely because of more and varied physical play with (i.e. engagement with), production of and feedback on compositions. In other words, assessing how students did their portfolios would demonstrate how they did or didn't improved cognitively. That which needs to be assessed, then, is their physical engagement with reading-writing. What and how are they (physically) producing that which they produce.

So, I would propose adding an element to assessment plans/models that would have students reflect on how they did what they did. I would have them evaluate their writing engagement and writing habits (e.g. did your average amount of time spent per writing session increase/decrease? did you see any patterns or habits develop such as a specific time/location you chose to write? did you feel you became more fluent with the tools and technologies of writing? did you feel more or less hesitant or pained or burdened by the physical act of sitting to read-compose? etc.) There could be a bevy of other potential guiding questions, but the impetus would be to uncover the students' habits of production. The goal of portfolios is to facilitate better writing, better process writing, that is. Which really means we want to help mentor better writers. Which is to say, we want to help develop better critical thinkers. Which will hopefully lead to more critical doers. What a portfolio aims to do, then, is instill the habits of (critical) producers (as opposed to consumers).