Mel's Prelim v.1

Dissertation Proposal: Cross-Disciplinary Faculty Storytelling Commons, Mel Chua
Cross-Disciplinary Faculty Storytelling Commons Dissertation Proposal Submitted to my PhD committee: Robin Adams Matt adud Alice Pa!ley Ruth Stre"eler by Mel Chua December #, $%1&
'ou can share this document !ith anyone you !ant, !ithout as(ing my permission, as long as you cite me as the author o) this paper* +,egalese: -his document is released under a Creati"e Commons Attribution &*% license*.
Dissertation Proposal: Cross-Disciplinary Faculty Storytelling Commons, Mel Chua Table of Contents p* # Chapter 1: Introduction Contributing to )aculty de"elopment research -he "alue o) public dialogue Framing )aculty de"elopment as a dialogue that can lead beyond S/-, 1hat !e (no! about learning 2no!ledge as situated and enculturated3 identity as per)ormati"e Research 4uestion -he current situation )or )aculty 67isting and prior inter"entions Criteria )or an ideal inter"ention Chapter 2: Participants and positionality Description o) narrators Description o) narrator conte7t 67isting relationships bet!een researcher and narrators -a(ing a poststructural positionality Chapter 3: Cognitive apprenticeship as a priori framwork Potential codes Rationale )or an a priori )rame!or( -he role o) re)lection Relationship to teaching identity de"elopment Chapter : !arrative analysis as methodology De)ining narrati"e analysis Communal nature o) narrati"es Rationale )or choosing narrati"e analysis Chapter ": The role of transparency De)ining radicaly transparent research +R-R. Rationale )or using R-R 1hat it means to employ R-R Assigning a copyright holder Rights o) the narrator as copyright holder Release under an open license -he recommended license )or this pro;ect: CC-<'-SA =race period be)ore public release -he ethics and legalities o) transparency >alidity and R-R in this study Chapter #: $tep by step 1hat narrators are as(ed to do Datasets produced Choosing a subset o) data )or analysis /"er"ie! o) analysis stages
p* 0
p* 5 p* 8 p* 9 p* :
p* 1% p* 11
p* 1& p* 1# p* 10 p* 15
p* 19 p* 1:
Dissertation Proposal: Cross-Disciplinary Faculty Storytelling Commons, Mel Chua p* $% p* $1 p* $$ p* $# p* $5 Stage %: Ra! Story and 6diting Con"ersation 67ample o) Stage %: Ra! Story and Pri"ate Data Ans!ering research 4uestions !ith Stage % Stage 1: Public Story and =rounded ?ndigenous Coding 67ample o) Stage 1: Public Story Ans!ering research 4uestions !ith Stage 1 Stage $a* -racing the narrator Ans!ering research 4uestions !ith Stage $a* Stage $b* -racing other characters Ans!ering research 4uestions !ith Stage $b Stage $c: Cogniti"e apprenticeships Ans!ering research 4uestions !ith Stage $c* Stage &: Short Story +released online, open-licensed. 67ample o) Stage &: Short Story Ans!ering research 4uestions !ith Stage &* Synthesi@ing an ans!er to the research 4uestion Chapter %: $o what& /utputs produced by this study Potential impacts Areas )or )uture e7ploration 'ppendices -imeline Storytelling session script -echnical setup o) a storytelling session (eferences
&
p* $8 p* $9 p* &% p* &1 p* && p* &# p* &0
Chapter 1: Introduction
-he purpose o) this narrati"e study is to analy@e ho! engineering and technology )aculty articulate their teaching identities !hen they engage in public storytelling about their e7periences ser"ing on curriculum re"ision teams* Contributing to faculty development research -his pro;ect is a contribution to )aculty de"elopment research in engineering education that addresses se"eral missed opportunities )or )ostering collegiality and greater transparency at the higher education le"el* -he central missed opportunity is that o) dialogue, especially dialogues that cross institutional lines and disciplinary silos* 1hen con"ersations about teaching do not happen, nobody can o"erhear and learn )rom them, and )aculty end up !asting e))ort rein"enting the curricular !heel* -he scholarship o) teaching and learning +S/-,. ser"es as an umbrella under !hich much )aculty de"elopment research )alls* 1hile S/-, itsel) spans all academic disciplines, this pro;ect )ocuses on technical and engineering )aculty, !ho need to hear )amiliar engineering terms and be reassured o) disciplinary rele"ance be)ore they !ill ta(e )aculty de"elopment programs seriously*i The value of public dialogue /ne ma;or "alue o) the S/-, community is e7posing the o)ten-in"isible practice o) teaching "ia publication* ,ee Shulman, President o) the -he Carnegie Foundation )or the Ad"ancement o) -eaching, presents three criteria )or such scholarship, all o) !hich are related to dialogue:ii 1* ?t is public $* ?t is peer-re"ie!ed by the practitionerAs community &* ?t can be used by that community as a stepping-stone to!ards )uture !or( -he )irst criteria is a prere4uisite )or dialogue, as ha"ing meaning)ul discussions about an arti)act is impossible !ithout access to that arti)act* -he second is a description o) dialogue itsel), since community members peer-re"ie! a piece o) scholarship by engaging in dialogue about it* -he third is the outcome o) success)ul scholarly dialogue: an e"olution o) the topic o) scholarship* )raming faculty development as a dialogue that can lead beyond $*T+ Framing )aculty de"elopment as the culti"ation o) dialogue allo!s us to start spea(ing about access to and )luency in the dialogue o) education* -echnical )aculty can ha"e di))iculties slipping into this dialogue, especially !hen they misapply paradigms )rom their technical training !hen )aced !ith the less )amiliar conte7t o) pedagogical de"elopment and education research*iiiAccess to dialogues around learning is a prere4uisite )or )luency !ithin them* A dialogue that can bridge across space +spanning multiple institutions. andBor time +being shared !ith and understood by people !ho !ere not present )or the initial con"ersation. has the potential to a))ect change in a larger audience than a dialogue that cannot*
Mo"ing engineering education research beyond S/-, into other )orms o) rigorous education research remains a goal o) engineering education researchersi"* Curricular re)orm in engineering usually remains at the practitioner research le"el that characteri@es S/-, or is discussed )rom a "ery high theoretical le"el* -here is not much in-bet!een to lin( theory and practice* -his is analogous to ha"ing grammar te7tboo(s and Paris tra"el stories, but no access to con"ersations in French* -he theoretical )rame!or( o) cogniti"e apprenticeships may pro"ide a !ay to start discussing and conducting these dialogues on learning3 this !ill be discussed in a later section* ,hat we know about learning ,earning about oneAs o!n identity de"elopment, speci)ically the de"elopment o) teaching identities, is a main topic o) the study* ?n (eeping !ith an ontology o) per)ormati"ity, !e see )aculty as acti"ely and continuously creating their teaching identities* Cote that the research 4uestion as(s ho! )aculty ma(e sense o) Dteaching identities,E not Dtheir teaching identities*E -his means narrators are not only ma(ing sense o) their personal identities as teachers3 they may also be ma(ing sense o) the teaching identities o) other narrators or characters in their stories* -he de"elopment o) a personal identity has implications )or oneAs !illingness to change* People resist change !hen they canFt see oursel"es in a changed )uture*" ?dentity shi)ts sho! up in the stories people tell be)ore they sho! up in their li"ed beha"ior*"i <y !or(ing !ith )aculty as narrators !ho can and reshape themsel"es as characters in the stories they tell, !e can e7plore the de"elopment o) teaching identities as a !ay to engage in )aculty de"elopment* -nowledge as situated and enculturated. identity as performative -his study ta(es the epistemological stance that (no!ledge is situated and enculturated* ,earners situate their o!n de"elopment !ithin a space !here many stages and "ariants o) mastery are displayed acting in relation to each other* ?n this !ay, they progress )rom speci)ic embedded acti"ities to general cultural principles*"ii -a(ing the epistemological assumption that (no!ledge is socially constructed and the ontological assumption that identity is per)ormati"e, !e see that (no!ledge concerning teaching identities must then be a socially negotiated sense-ma(ing o) certain per)ormances* ?n this study, those per)ormances consist o) dialogues on pedagogy* (esearch /uestion Go! do engineering and technology )aculty ma(e sense o) their teaching identities through public storytelling centered on curricular re"isionH The current situation for faculty ?n the absence o) an inter"ention such as the one described in this study, these dialogues are di))icult )or engineering and technology )aculty to come across* -he situation o) engineering )aculty is not generally an en"ironment not conduci"e to curricular I)luency*E Ce! )aculty are o)ten isolated and not prepared )or teaching*"iiii7 Con"entional academic approaches )or disseminating in)ormation do not actually spread this discourse to engineering )aculty3 ;ournal papers per)orm this tas( !ith particularly abysmal e))ecti"eness*7 More recently, Fincher et al )ound that computing )aculty do not intentionally search )or literature on
Dissertation Proposal: Cross-Disciplinary Faculty Storytelling Commons, Mel Chua teaching practice changes*7i -he same t!o studies pointed to accidental, in-person contact as the primary !ay teaching practice changes actually spread* 01isting and prior interventions Fincher and -enenbergAs earlier !or( on Disciplinary Commons attempted to address the same problem o) )aculty isolation and a lac( o) dialogue*7ii -heir approach !as to culti"ate a community o) practice by con"ening periodic in-person meetings !ith )aculty o"er the course o) a year* -he desired dialogues did occur, but only a small group o) local )aculty !ere able to bene)it )rom the e7perience*
?ntensi"e !or(shops are another type o) inter"ention aimed at )ostering pedagogical dialogue among engineering )aculty* Short "ersions that typically last only part o) a day are held as part o) engineering education con)erences li(e AS667iii or F?67i"* ?ndi"idual engineering colleges sometimes host multi-day !or(shops7", and indi"idual engineering )aculty sometimes tra"el to other schools to teach !or(shops to the )aculty there7"i* Go!e"er, these e7periences are also limited to the small group that attends, and the one-shot duration means )aculty do not get to discuss their e7periences as they come up throughout an actual semester o) teaching* 1or(shops are )ramed as separate )rom the daily li)e o) a )aculty member, something one must tra"el and ta(e time out to do* /n-campus centers )or teaching, learning, and )aculty de"elopment are o)ten sta))ed by non-engineers, !hich as pre"iously discussed leads to s(epticism regarding their credibility on the part o) technical )aculty members* /nline communities7"ii address the problem o) branching beyond local groups o) )aculty, scale to large numbers o) participants, and lea"e te7t discussion trails usable by )uture readers, but are also not speci)ically geared to!ards technical disciplines* Criteria for an ideal intervention -he current study has been designed to meet the )ollo!ing criteria: 1* Scaleable to a large number o) participants, in order to ma7imi@e impact* $* Co location re4uirements, in order to lo!er costs and ma(e participation more con"enient* ?) the inter"ention engages a large numbers o) participants, location-independence also ma(es it possible to recruit )rom a larger participant pool* &* Facilitated by a )ello! engineeringBtechnology scholar, in order to gain credibility !ith the target )aculty group* #* Gigh degree o) participant interaction, in order to )oster dialogue and collaborati"ely constructed (no!ledge* 0* Gigh degree o) sel)-determination among participants, in order to encourage participants to construct (no!ledge in !ays that are meaning)ul to them* 5* Multiple interactions spread out o"er the course o) a normal teaching semester or longer, to encourage participants to situate dialogue in their actual teaching conte7ts* 8* Minimal !or( re4uired )or participation, as )aculty are chronically o"er!or(ed* 9* Recognition as a "aluable acti"ity )or tenure and promotion*
Chapter 2: Participants and positionality

-he indi"idual )aculty member is the unit o) analysis in this study* -hese are academic pro)essionals )or !hom undergraduate teaching is an important part o) their career, but not the only one3 research, ser"ice, and other roles are also e7pected7"iii* -hese )aculty are our primary narrators in the pro;ect, participating in storytelling sessions !here they describe their curricular re"ision e7periences, as per the research 4uestion* 2escription of narrators -his study enrolls engineering and technology )aculty members )rom $ colleges, $ being the minimum number )or the cross-institutional dialogue !e hope to spur* 6ach college has & participating )aculty narrators, all o) !hom ser"ed together on the same curricular re"ision team* & narrators )rom each college !as the minimum number )or ha"ing multiple perspecti"es !ithout simply creating a binary* -he only eligibility re4uirements )or participants !as that they be engineering or technology )aculty !ho had participated in their collegeAs curricular re"ision team and subse4uently taught engineering or technology courses a))ected by the re"ision* Go!e"er, the 5 selected )aculty also happened to be crossdisciplinary academics3 in addition to their !or( in engineering and technology, each o) them has a humanities or education degree, dissertation, or research )ocus* ?n addition to the 5 )aculty narrators, there are $ sta)) narrators, one )rom each college* -he sta)) narrators !ere also hea"ily in"ol"ed in the curricular re"ision at their school* -hey (no! the participating )aculty narrators )rom their colleges both personally and pro)essionally* -he participation o) our $ sta)) narrators !ill pro"ide more access to historical documents and the big-picture bac(ground conte7t o) the curricular re"ision* 2escription of narrator conte1t -he )aculty narrators are based either at all-engineering /lin College7i7 in Massachusetts or the -echnology and Applied Design program at <erea College77 in 2entuc(y* <oth are small suburban undergraduate colleges !ith uni4ue missions and student bodies* /lin College !as chartered in 1::8 in response to calls )or re)orm in engineering education77i* ?ts entire student body is gender-balanced and recei"es hal)-tuition scholarships, !hich !ere )ull-tuition until the $%%8 economic do!nturn77ii* <erea !as incorporated in 195: to educate students o) all colors and classes at a time !hen that !as a no"el idea77iii* ?t accepts only students !ith limited )inancial resources and grants them all a )ull-tuition scholarship77i"* <oth schools ha"e a strong emphasis on 4uality teaching and a culture !here students are e7pected to help shape the institution* ?t is common )or students to help !ith course design and ser"e on administrati"e committees, and alumni loyalty le"els are unusually high* More importantly )or the purposes o) this study, both ha"e undergone curricular re"isions )or implementing design thin(ing across their entire #-year engineering or technology curriculum* -he di))erence is timing: /lin started their Ddesign thin(ingE curriculum 11 years ago, !hereas <erea did it 1 year ago, allo!ing )or a
Dissertation Proposal: Cross-Disciplinary Faculty Storytelling Commons, Mel Chua comparison bet!een past and present narrati"es !hen dialogues ta(e place bet!een the colleges* 01isting relationships between researcher and narrators
? +the researcher. ha"e e7isting )riendly ties to all 5 o) the )aculty narrators and both their schools* As a member o) /linAs $nd graduating class, ? ser"ed on the committee responsible )or its $%%8 curriculum o"erhaul* During summer $%1$, ? !or(ed to redesign <ereaAs electronics class* Additionally, committee member Matt adud !as a "isiting pro)essor at /lin and no! teaches at <erea, and is thus !ellpositioned to help !ith additional conte7t na"igation and sanity-chec(ing* All /lin )aculty ha"e had me as a student in their courses* All <erea )aculty !ere introduced to me as a student o) MattAs3 they (no! heAs ser"ing on my dissertation committee* -hese interactions mean the narrators see themsel"es as )aculty in relationship to me, a student, !hich creates a mentor-mentee association and a po!er dynamic in !hich ? am the lo!er-status DlearnerE in our interactions* ? intend to ta(e ad"antage o) this dynamic by )raming storytelling sessions as opportunities to transmit academic tribal (no!ledge to a )uture )aculty member* Jsing the terms Dstorytelling sessionE rather than Dinter"ie!E and DnarratorsE instead o) Dstudy participantsE rein)orces this perception* Taking a poststructural positionality As a researcher, ? ta(e a poststructural approach o) interruption and discom)ort* -he use o) the term Dma(ing senseE in the research 4uestion implies an e"ol"ing, acti"e process o) creation and articulation, !hich suggests a type o) (no!ledge thatFs being constantly brought into being, not the )inding o) an abstract and unchangeable truth* <iases are ine"itable on the part o) all narrators, the researcher, and any other study participants* 1ith a poststructural approach, these indi"idual "ie!points are not shoehorned into a sel)-consistent metanarrati"e3 instead, their contradictions and multiple realities are embraced* A poststructural approach supports the de"elopment and "oicing o) agency in narrators* <y allo!ing themes to emerge )rom the narrati"e data instead o) predetermining all o) my analytical )oci be)orehand, ? am pointing out the constructed nature o) this (no!ledge3 it is a little-t Dtruth,E not an absolute and pree7isting uni"ersal -ruth* <y enlisting narrators in the process o) unco"ering themes, ? am pointing out the social nature o) this (no!ledge3 !e all ha"e di))erent interpretations o) the same per)ormances, and the process o) sharing our interpretations helps us connect to one another !ithout necessarily trying to eliminate the di))erences bet!een us* ?t is my hope that this approach reminds both narrators and non-narrating participants that they al!ays ha"e the agency to contribute to the multi"ocality o) our !orld* During the storytelling itsel), ? can )ocus on getting the storyteller to tal( as much as possible, because their tal(ing consists o) their thoughts and not mine* My process o) creating the Dshort storyE by using only direct 4uotes )rom storytellers +edited )or grammarBconte7t. !ill also let my attendees Dspea( )or themsel"esE as much as possible* Finally, the transparency o) public data and analysis !ill allo! any interested person to bac(-trace !here and ho! my o!n thoughts, analysis, and opinions ha"e trans)ormed the storytellerFs story into !hate"er )inal outputs they may be "ie!ing*
Chapter 3: Cognitive apprenticeship as a priori framework

Much o) the theoretical )raming ? am beginning !ith comes )rom cogniti"e apprenticeship theory as de"eloped by Collins, <ro!n, Ce!man, Golum, and Duguid in the late 9%As and early :%As* Cogniti"e apprenticeship is the practice o) ma(ing thin(ing "isible so that learners can de"elop through participating in a li"ing community77"* Cogniti"e apprenticeship theory emphasi@es the situated, communal nature o) learning, !hich connects it !ith the theories o) communities o) practice as !ell as the "alue S/-, practitioners place on ma(ing oneAs actions "isible to the community*77"i Potential codes Cogniti"e apprenticeship is an a priori theory, a theoretical starting point )or articulating an initial analysis* ?t is not e7pected to be the only theoretical )raming by the end o) the study* Ce"ertheless, the papers cited abo"e pro"ide some potential codes to use in the beginning o) the study, as sho!n in italics in the ne7t paragraph* Mentors in a cogniti"e apprenticeship use e7plicit strategies li(e modeling, coaching, scaffolding, and fading in their teaching, since cogniti"e practices are not automatically "isible the !ay Dcra)tE apprenticeships li(e !ood!or(ing are* ,earners are thus immersed in an authentic practice )rom the start, learning the discourse o) the practice as an integral part o) the practice and seeing other learners at different stages along multiple routes to multiple models of mastery the entire time* ,earners engage in legitimate peripheral participation3 e"en i) they are no"ices, they are considered to )ully DbelongE in the scene* -hey create zones of proximal development, accomplishing !ith assistance things they could not ha"e accomplished alone* (ationale for an a priori framework -he preceding codes can be used to e7plain !hy an a priori codeset is use)ul i) it is so important )or the study to allo! themes to emerge )rom the data* An priori )rame!or( is scaffolding that creates a))ordances )or legitimate peripheral participation by participants !ho may )ind sitting in an unstructured, un(no!n space )or an e7tended period o) time to be e7cruciatingly uncom)ortable* ?t gi"es dialogue participants something to grab onto in the beginning, the start o) a small shared language they can use to communicate a comple7 situation* ?n (eeping !ith a poststructural mentality, the use o) a priori codes +or any theory. is intended to e"entually sho! !here the theories brea( do!n and )all apart* Jsing <runerAs terminology, this codeset is the canon that !e loo( )or de"iation )rom* Jsing MishlerFs terminology, starting !ith an a priori codeset helps us unco"er our habitual standard meanings so that ne! meanings can be made* The role of reflection /ne early criti4ue o) the limitations o) a cogniti"e apprenticeship codeset is that !hile the theory tal(s about metacognition as a part o) both learning and teaching in cogniti"e apprenticeships, it does not speci)ically address re)lection and its relationship to identity* SchoenAs !or( on re)lection-in-action77"ii is one o) many scholarly con"ersations on methods to )acilitate re)lection and the bene)its o) being conscious o) !hat !e do !hile !eAre doing it* 1hen narrators participate in a storytelling session, they are re)lecting on their e7periences as as !ay to participate in a cogniti"e apprenticeship* -his re)lecti"e
Dissertation Proposal: Cross-Disciplinary Faculty Storytelling Commons, Mel Chua practice bridges past actions to present consciousness and )uture plans* (elationship to teaching identity development
1%
?dentity de"elopment is the outcome o) cogniti"e apprenticeships* ?) !e ta(e the de)inition o) mastery to be an increased ability to ma(e sense o) conte7t77"iii, cogniti"e apprenticeships are !here learners shape themsel"es into masters through participating in successi"ely less sca))olded acti"ities* -he culti"ation o) a cogniti"e apprenticeship en"ironment !ith and )or my narrators is there)ore an important part o) the study*
11
Chapter : !arrative analysis as methodology

2efining narrative analysis Carrati"e analysis, as one might e7pect, is the analysis o) narrati"es K but )or the speci)ic purposes o) understanding ho! people construct meaning )rom the !orld, not )or the sa(e o) literature in its o!n right* <runer describes narrati"es as things through !hich people construct social systems by e7pressing and e7tracting meaning, but !hich cannot be interpreted as se4uences o) strict causality because o) the )ree !ill their characters possess* ?nstead, readers interpret the reasoning behind a story according to their conte7t, !hether theyFre a!are o) this or not*77i7 Communal nature of narratives -he communal interpretation o) a narrati"e K or more commonly, an accrual o) narrati"es K is thus a !ay to share and negotiate our di))erences in perspecti"e !ithout necessarily collapsing those di))erences777* ?) using the !ord Dnarrati"eE and DcommunityE in the same sentence still sounds odd, it shouldnAt3 itFs !ithin this sort o) community en"ironment and engagement that indi"idual identities de"elop* -he communal nature o) narrati"es is an important )eature )or this research pro;ect, !hich see(s to open and deepen dialogue across di))erent institutional conte7ts on a topic !hose interpretation is o)ten e7tremely personal and there)ore di))icult to trans)er* <runer also describes ho! the community setting o) autobiographical storytelling interacts !ith our identity )ormation* D/ur indi"idual autobiographies*** depend on being placed !ithin a continuity pro"ided by a constructed and shared social history in !hich !e locate our Sel"es and indi"idual continuities* ?t is a sense o) belonging to this canonical past that permits us to )orm our o!n narrati"es o) de"iation !hile maintaining complicity !ith the canon777i*I +p* $%. -his research pro;ect see(s to elicit such re)le7i"e autobiographies on teaching and to help their narrators collaborati"ely place them into a shared social history that !ill be accessible to the public* (ationale for choosing narrative analysis -he methodological choice o) narrati"e analysis comes )rom the ideas o) discourse ideas !ithin the cogniti"e apprenticeship )rame!or(* As !e ha"e seen earlier, storytelling is a !ay o) ma(ing sense o) the !orld* Public storytelling about a curricular re"ision is a type o) engagement in a cogniti"e apprenticeship, albeit one distributed across space and time* Sharing these narrati"es creates a disciplinary commons and hones the ability o) narrators to participate in discourse, !hich is an important component o) community participation* 1hen our shared narrati"es are about our o!n actions, !e end up engaging in re)lection-in-action, as e7plained by Schoen* -his is a place o) generati"e tension3 !hile standard and shared meanings are indeed rei)ied by community narrati"e collections, Mishler777ii also describes this participation in community discourse as helping us a"oid the trap o) assuming those standard meanings out o) habit, and instead allo!ing meaning to emerge through and be reali@ed in the discourse itsel) +p* 50.* Golstein and =ubrium777iii !rite that the aim o) narrati"e inter"ie!s is not to search D)or the best or most
Dissertation Proposal: Cross-Disciplinary Faculty Storytelling Commons, Mel Chua authentic ans!er,E but rather to Dsystematically acti"ate applicable !ays o) (no!ing K the possible ans!ers*** as di"erse and contradictory as they might beE +p* &8. As humans, !e !rite our stories together, per)orm them to each other, and interpret them )or each other, !hich means !eAll o)ten disagree and contradict each otherAs stories and interpretations in a !ay that )its the poststructural positionality o) this study*
1$
1&
Chapter ": The role of transparency

-he proposed pro;ect employs Radically -ransparent Research +R-R.* -his section discusses !hat R-R is and ho! it a))ects the study design* -his study !ill be the )irst complete deployment o) R-R3 ? am using the methodology, not studying it* ?n particular, note that my research 4uestion could be ans!ered !ithout employing R-R* ?n"estigation o) R-R as a methodology may be a research pro;ect o) its o!n in the )uture +see DSo !hatH: Possible )uture directionsE., but it is not !ithin the scope o) this dissertation* 2efining (adically Transparent (esearch 3(T(4 Radically -ransparent Research +R-R. is an emergent 4ualitati"e research methodology ? ha"e piloted since $%11 and continue to de"elop* R-R is inspired by the radical realtime transparency practices o) open communities such as Free and /pen Source so)t!are, hard!are, and content pro;ects* -hese communities use distributed, asynchronous te7t con"ersations as a !ay to connect their practitioners !ith "ery lo! )inancial and time costs* ?n the D?ntroductionE section o) this document, !e e7amined ,ee ShulmanAs & criteria )or scholarship777i": 1* ?t is public $* ?t is peer-re"ie!ed by the practitionerAs community &* ?t can be used by that community as a stepping-stone to!ards )uture !or( ?nterestingly enough, this parallels Free So)t!are +and thus /pen Culture. pioneer Richard StallmanAs # criteria )or so)t!are Freedom777": 1* -he )reedom to run the program, )or any purpose* $* -he )reedom to study ho! the program !or(s, and change it so it does your computing as you !ish* Access to the source code is a precondition )or this* &* -he )reedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor* #* -he )reedom to distribute copies o) your modi)ied "ersions to others* <y doing this you can gi"e the !hole community a chance to bene)it )rom your changes* Access to the source code is a precondition )or this* Combining Shulman and StallmanAs principles yields the )ollo!ing initial statement o) the criteria )or R-R, !hich could be described as a sort o) Free Scholarship: 1* -he !or( is public and )reely accessible* $* -he arti)acts +data, analysis, etc*. used to create the !or( is also public and )reely accessible so that it can be studied and peer-re"ie!ed by communities o) practitioners* &* -he !or( and its arti)acts can be )reely modi)ied and distributed so others in these communities can bene)it )rom and build atop it*
Dissertation Proposal: Cross-Disciplinary Faculty Storytelling Commons, Mel Chua (ationale for using (T(
1#
-he intent o) R-R is to result in public and collaborati"ely constructed arti)acts !ith the potential to broaden a!areness o) and participation in research* -ransparency is a prere4uisite o) legitimate peripheral participation, the mechanism by !hich ne!comers enter a community o) practice777"i* ,ur(ing, or !atching !ithout directly participating, is a )orm o) legitimate peripheral participation that may be particularly important )or the e"entual participation o) underrepresented groups777"ii* R-R also creates a compendium o) stories that can be shared !ith other practitioners considering similar trans)ormations to their o!n practices* ,hat it means to employ (T( 6mploying R-R in a research pro;ect means conducting the entire pro;ect in a structured and transparent !ay so e7ternal parties can easily audit and participate* For this particular pro;ect, employing R-R means: 1* Conducting narrati"e analysis in clear iterations* -hese iterations are described )urther in the DStep by step: Data analysis !al(throughE subsection* $* Releasing each analytical iteration under an open license, !hich legally enables e7ternal parties to "ie!, share, and contribute to the pro;ect* -his process is described )urther in the DStep by step: Public publishing logisticsE subsection* &* Publishing each iteration on the !eb, !hich logistically enables e7ternal parties to "ie!, share, and contribute to the pro;ect* -he legal process o) conducting these steps is described belo!* 'ssigning a copyright holder -he copyright holder o) a document is the party !ho determines !hat can and cannot be done !ith that document, including publication and reuse* According to pri"ate con"ersations !ith Donna ,* Ferullo +Director o) the Jni"ersity Copyright /))ice at Purdue Jni"ersity. and 2arl Fogel +Founder, President, and 67ecuti"e Director o) Luestion Copyright., there is no consensus as to !ho o!ns the copyright to an inter"ie! transcript, but it is some combination o) the sub;ect +the DnarratorE in this study. and the inter"ie!er +the DresearcherE in this study.* -here)ore, the )irst step in the process is )or the narrator and researcher to assign copyright to a speci)ic party* Assigning copyright is a simple process, and consists o) documenting the e7change that )ollo!s in any )ormat* ?n this study, the e7change !ill be stated "erbally and captured on the transcript o) the storytelling session: D?C-6R>?616R hereby irre"ocably trans)ers and assigns to ?C-6R>?6166 in perpetuity, all right +!hether no! (no!n or hereina)ter in"ented., title, and interest, throughout the !orld, including any copyrights and rene!als or e7tensions thereto, in the attached transcript o) the inter"ie! recorded bet!een us on DA-6 in ,/CA-?/C*E
Dissertation Proposal: Cross-Disciplinary Faculty Storytelling Commons, Mel Chua (ights of the narrator as copyright holder
10
A)ter copyright assignment has been completed, the narrator has total control o"er the data, including: 1* $* &* #* 1hether and ho! to identi)y themsel"es and others in the transcript 1hat sections +i) any. to modi)y and cut )rom the transcript 1here and ho! +i) any!here. to publish any "ersion o) the transcript 1hat license +i) any. to apply to any "ersion o) the transcript, !hich determines !hether and ho! others can use and share it
-he narrator also has the option o) !ithdra!ing their transcript )rom the study in its entirety* -his !ay, the narrator has multiple le"els o) control o"er their public presentation: 1* $* &* #* -he choice o) !hat story to tell in their pri"ate storytelling session -he choice o) ho! to tell that story in their pri"ate storytelling session -he choice o) !hether and !hat parts o) that story to publish -he choice o) !hat annotations and e7planations o) their o!n they !ant to couple to that story +!ithout restricting the ability o) others to comment and annotate on the public "ersions o) their story.
(elease under an open license -he ne7t step is )or the narrator to edit and annotate the transcript to their satis)action to produce a "ersion they are com)ortable going public !ith* More details o) this editing and annotation process can be )ound in step & o) the appendi7 titled DFormat o) a storytelling session*E -he researcher helps )acilitate this process* /nce a public "ersion o) the storytelling sessionAs research outputs has been produced, the narrator releases it under an open license* An open license is a license that e7plicitly allo!s some le"el o) sharing andBor remi7ing o) !or( )or certain purposes* Releasing a document under an open license is done by documenting +in any )ormat. the copyright holderAs desire to release the document under that license* ?n this study, as !ith the copyright assignment, the e7change !ill be stated "erbally and captured on the transcript o) the storytelling session* The recommended license for this pro5ect: CC6786$' -he license the researcher !ill recommend using )or this pro;ect is the Creati"e Commons Attribution Share-Ali(e &*% ,icense, !hich allo!s sharing and remi7ing !ithout as(ing permission as long as the original !or( and authors are cited, and the resulting product is also open-licensed* -he choice o) this license means that anything using our dataBanalysis !ill become part o) the open-licensed dataset* Go!e"er, in a strict legal sense, the )inal choice o) license is al!ays le)t to the copyright holder*
Dissertation Proposal: Cross-Disciplinary Faculty Storytelling Commons, Mel Chua 9race period before public release
15
Although not strictly re4uired by open licensing and copyright la!, the narrator is gi"en a grace period timeout o) at least 1 !ee(* During the grace period, the narrator can contact the researcher to modi)y or !ithdra! the public outputs )rom the storytelling session* At the end o) the grace period, the public outputs are automatically published to the !eb* The ethics and legalities of transparency Most human sub;ects studies place a high ethical priority on data con)identiality and anonymity !ith the intent o) protecting their participants* R-R deliberately re"erses the usual practices o) data con)identiality and anonymity, but the sa)ety o) participants remains an important ethical consideration* -elling a story al!ays brings the ris( that someone might disagree !ith or disli(e our story and ta(e action against you as a result* My narrators are adult academic pro)essionals )ully cogni@ant o) research consent, the politics o) their institutions, and ho! )ar they are personally !illing to go in certain areas* ?n the end, they get to ma(e the )inal decision regarding !hat to publish as the public record o) the story attributed to their name* Co data !ill go public !ithout the e7press consent o) the narrator3 a detailed description o) the process o) consent is gi"en in the DStep by step: Public publishing logisticsE subsection o) this document* /ne o) my responsibilities as a researcher is to remind narrators that they are storytelling in a public space* ?) ? see something in a story that could cause issues, especially !ith institutional politics or e7ternal audiences, ? !ill do my best to articulate the potential issue to the narrator* ?) such content sho!s up in a )inal public document because o) a narratorAs deliberate decision to include it, ? may add note it in a public annotation to that document +under my name, to distinguish it )rom the narratorAs "oice.* Any narrator or any member o) the public can similarly add their o!n public annotation +under their o!n names or pseudonyms. i) they !ant their perspecti"e to be recorded* ? !ill also maintain a paper trail o) copyright, licensing, and consent )or inter"ie!ing, online participation, and publishing* Such a paper trail co"ers the legal aspects o) this pro;ect* :alidity and (T( in this study -he $%%0 edition o) the SA=6 Gandboo( o) Lualitati"e Research gi"es honesty, trust!orthiness, and authenticity as elements o) "alidity )or studies such as this one that ta(e the position that (no!ledge is co-constructed777"iii* -he transparency enabled by R-R pro"ides a mechanism )or this type o) research "alidity* Since all the data and intermediate analysis is public, anyone !ith internet access can choose to bac(trace and criti4ue my !or( at any time* -he !or( must be not only public, but na"igable such that e"ery portion o) the )inal output can be identi)ied !ith !here and !hen it appears in other documents and !ho +by pseudonym. has !or(ed on it* Patti ,ather goes one step )arther, brea(ing the "alidity o) a postmodern study into # components: triangulation, construct "alidity, )ace "alidity, and catalytic "alidity777i7*
18
-his pro;ect addresses triangulation by pro"iding access to multiple sources and "oices: "erbatim 4uotes )rom multiple narrators, enlisting narrators )or preliminary analysis o) their o!n stories as a mandatory part o) the inter"ie! process, and in"iting open comments, analysis, and remi7ing by the public* ?t also triangulates bet!een multiple theories, deliberately using cogniti"e apprenticeship as an a priori sca))olding that ne! theories can po(e holes into as they emerge )rom the data* Construct "alidity can also be described as systemi@ed re)le7i"ity, and is satis)ied by the a)orementioned a!areness o) ho! !e !ill operate !ith and !ithin certain theories* Face "alidity, or the resonance o) study outputs !ith participants, is addressed by the co-constructi"e acti"ities bet!een narrators and the researcher during and beyond the inter"ie! process* Carrators must ultimately be satis)ied and com)ortable enough !ith their public portrayal to allo! it to be published* Finally, catalytic "alidity Ireorients, )ocuses, and energi@es participants to!ard (no!ing reality in order to trans)orm it7lI +p* 59. !hich is echoed in the stated aims o) ma(ing participants a!are o) agency*
19
Chapter #: $tep by step

-his section e7plains the actual methods o) data collection and analysis to be used in the study* ,hat narrators are asked to do 6ach narrator enrolled in the study !ill be as(ed to schedule and attend 8 +)or )aculty. or $ +)or sta)). online or in-person storytelling sessions, $ hours or less each in length, bet!een /ctober $%1& and /ctober $%1#* 6ach narrator !ill also be as(ed to indicate !hether they !ish to be noti)ied about the pro;ect bet!een inter"ie!s, and i) so, !hich noti)ications they !ish to recei"e and in !hat )ormat +email, phone, etc.* 67ample noti)ications include: 1* 1hen other narratorsF stories are posted $* 1hen someone comments on their stories &* 1hen pro;ect outputs +analysis, synthesis, etc*. are released 2atasets produced Since there are 1 sta)) and & )aculty narrators )rom each o) $ schools, the )ollo!ing datasets !ill be generated during the course o) this pro;ect* 2ataset Faculty storytelling session M1 +!arm-up. Faculty storytelling sessions M$-5 +narrati"es, )irst hal) o) session. Faculty storytelling sessions M$-5 +editing, second hal) o) session. Faculty storytelling session M8 +debrie). Sta)) storytelling session M1 +!arm-up. Sta)) storytelling session M$ +debrie). Additional documents +analysis, commentary, course design arti)acts. submitted by narrators Additional documents +analysis, commentary. submitted by public $torytelling sessions per participant 1 0 0 1 1 1 CBA CBA Participant3s4 5 )aculty 5 )aculty 5 )aculty 5 )aculty $ sta)) $ sta)) CBA CBA ;ours of data 1$ +$ hours per session. &% +1 hour per session. &% +1 hour per session. 1$ +$ hours per session. 1$ +$ hours per session. 1$ +$ hours per session. CBA CBA
Dissertation Proposal: Cross-Disciplinary Faculty Storytelling Commons, Mel Chua Choosing a subset of data for analysis -his study uses a predetermined number o) inter"ie!s !ith a )i7ed number o) sub;ects as opposed to continuing to inter"ie! until DsaturationE is reached* Go!e"er, as the pre"ious table sho!s, data collection !ill yield )ar too much data to analy@e )or a single dissertation, alle"iating concerns about ha"ing su))icient and su))iciently rich data*
1:
-he amount o) data needed to reach theoretical saturation !ill be chosen a)ter data collection by choosing !hich subsets o) data to analy@e* -he current plan is to analy@e datasets 1 and $, consisting o) the introductory inter"ie! and 0 storytelling sessions )or each o) the 5 )aculty members* Accounting )or the time needed to open and close the inter"ie!, this yields bet!een 0%-8$ hours o) )aculty stories that directly address the research 4uestion o) sensema(ing around curricular re"ision* /ther datasets may be used to help address the research 4uestion by pro"iding )urther conte7t to the )aculty stories* *verview of analysis stages 1e !ill no! use a )abricated data sample to demonstrate the stages o) narrati"e analysis )aculty narrati"es !ill go through* -he stages are as )ollo!s: Stage %: Ra! Story and 6diting Con"ersation Stage 1: Public Story and =rounded ?ndigenous Coding Stage $: DCon"entionalE analysis passes Stage $a* -racing the narrator Stage $b* -racing other characters Stage $c: Cogniti"e apprenticeships Stage &: Short Story For each stage o) analysis, ? !ill present: 1* An o"er"ie! o) that stage* $* A sample output )rom that stage combining data and analysis )rom a )abricated )aculty narrati"e* -he same )abricated narrati"e !ill be used in each e7ample in order to sho! progression through the stages* &* Go! that stage o) analysis addresses the research 4uestion* $tage <: (aw $tory and 0diting Conversation -he (aw $tory is the li"e, unedited transcript o) the )irst hal) o) the inter"ie!, !hen the narrator is storytelling* -he 0diting Conversation is the anonymi@ed transcript o) the second hal) o) the inter"ie!, !hen the narrator and ? loo( at the (aw $tory and re"ie!, edit, and tal( about the story theyF"e ;ust told* -he resulting edited "ersion is the Public $tory, !hich is the ne7t analysis stage* -he (aw $tory, is discarded completely )or pri"acy reasons* -he 0diting Conversation is anonymi@ed and included in the Private 2ataset )or )uture pro;ects on realtime transcription, grounded
Dissertation Proposal: Cross-Disciplinary Faculty Storytelling Commons, Mel Chua indigenous coding, and radical transparency as 4ualitati"e research methods*
$%
Since the (aw $tory is almost identical to the Public $tory, is ne"er used )or analysis and is discarded once the Public $tory is created, ? !ill not include an e7ample (aw $tory here* Go!e"er, an e7ample 0diting Conversation is belo!* 'ouFll notice indications that !eFre !riting something +D?Fm !riting !hat you ;ust said on line $$,E etc*. K this is the Dbehind the scenesE con"ersation )rom creating the Public $tory and 9rounded Indigenous Coding +ne7t section.* 01ample of $tage <: (aw $tory 3not shown4 and Private 2ata 3e1cerpt4
RESEARCHER: So what we have is, as you can see, the transcript. Let's go back over it together. I' !ike you to !ook "or whether there is anything you' !ike to change or e it or e!ete be"ore this story goes pub!ic, an a!so i" there are any pub!ic notes or co##ents you' !ike to #ake, things that stan out "or you about what you sai . $AR%ICI$A&%: 'e!! I #ean I think one thing is this i ea o" there's this, you know, the big book. Even using the !anguage the big #agic book that has a!! the answers, you know, an kin o" thinking about is there such a thing as the big book that has a!! the answers. (!ti#ate!y I ha to #ake it #y own. I think that was so#ething I was thinking about. RESEARCHER: )kay. So I'# writing what you *ust sai on !ine ++. %his is a!! very rough an i#provisationa!. 'e have the big book you ta!k about so there wasn't a big book. 'hat e!se i you ta!k about having the big book, %a!ke about the e""ect o" not having... $AR%ICI$A&%: Right. So the big book being the p!aceho! er "or in"or#ation about the c!ass, what we cou! o, what are the key points, you know, what are the goa!s. RESEARCHER: )k, I'# writing that own a!so. %his is great. I want to re#in you that we're trying to pub!ish this story a!so, so is there anything you' want to take out be"ore we pub!ish this, $AR%ICI$A&%: -eah, I #ean in this particu!ar scenario it has so#e ba stu"" attache to it, that the guy who was suppose to teach the c!ass su en!y cou! n't, but there were !egit hea!th prob!e#s there nobo y e.pecte , so... take that out, RESEARCHER: /oes this !ook ok to you now, $AR%ICI$A&%: -eah. -eah, that I wou! be co#"ortab!e going pub!ic with.
'nswering research /uestions with $tage <: (aw $tory and 0diting Conversation -his stage o) analysis is not used to ans!er the research 4uestion o) the current study* ?t may lead to later !or( on the e))ects o) public +as opposed to pri"ate. storytelling* For instance, one might in"estigate the sorts o) things people edit out and !hat they say !hile theyFre editing* Go!e"er, this is a deeper e7planation than the current dissertation pro;ect !ill underta(e* -he (aw $tory, as mentioned earlier, is discarded completely )or pri"acy reasons* -he 0diting Conversation is anonymi@ed and included in the Private 2ataset )or )uture pro;ects on realtime transcription, grounded indigenous coding, and radical transparency as 4ualitati"e research methods*
$1
$tage 1: Public $tory and 9rounded Indigenous Coding 3released online= open6licensed4 -he Public $tory is an almost-ra! transcript o) the )irst hal) o) the inter"ie!, )rom !hen the narrator is )ocused on telling rather than analy@ing their story* ?t is an edited "ersion o) the Private $tory that has been appro"ed by the narrator )or public release* -he 9rounded Indigenous Coding 39IC4 is the annotations the narrator and ? !rite directly on the Public Story transcript while we're reading it +DgroundedE. and while the story is still being told +DindigenousE.* =?Cs are thus an early )orm o) analysis* -heyFre also a mechanism the narrator and ? can use to ma(e parts o) the 0diting Conversation o) our inter"ie! public* 01ample of $tage 1: Public $tory 3e1cerpt4
$AR%ICI$A&%: 'e!! the e.a#p!e that you're showing #e is so#ebo y who here is this c!ass an here is the big book, you know, o" a!! the stu"" that goes with the c!ass. 0or the c!ass I taught, you know, there wasn't a big book. So that was essentia!!y, you know, copies o" a!! the rea ings, the version o" the sy!!abus an I ha a!! o" a ay to sort o" sit own an try to have so#ething 1uick so that the stu ents in the c!ass ha a c!ue o" what to o the ne.t week. 2Laughter3 RESEARCHER: (h4huh. $AR%ICI$A&%: So it's been an interesting story in ter#s o" not having a "air a#ount o" in"or#ation about what was one in the past, an not knowing why he chose the things that he chose to rea , an not rea!!y seeing the pattern an not rea!!y even seeing a, you know, a set o" 1uestions that he #ight have ha in his #in . It was *ust wi e open. -ou know, the ownsi e o" that is I i n't rea!!y "ee! co#"ortab!e *ust saying I wi!! o e.act!y what he i because I on't know e.act!y what he i . 2Laughter3 RESEARCHER: Right. $AR%ICI$A&%: -ou know, an then it was, we!! I can't be hi#. I have to be whatever it is that I can be. So then the o! %As starte getting e4#ai!s about can you te!! #e how he use ti#e in c!ass... you wou! have thought #aybe I cou! have spent ti#e be"ore the ter# happene to anticipate, p!an it out, but in so #any ways I i n't want to rock the boat. I on't know i" there was a big book o" !ike, 5this is how to teach the c!ass.6 RESEARCHER: A book "or the teacher, not necessari!y the stu ent, $AR%ICI$A&%: I" I wou! have necessari!y gone ah, you know, here is the recipe. %his is what I wi!! o this week. %his is what I wi!! o ne.t week to kin o" see the big story so that I cou! con"i ent!y o it... we i n't rea!!y have the resources. %here's no such thing as the 57ig 7ook,6 u!ti#ate!y I have to #ake it #y own. E""ects o" not having the 57ig 7ook.6
9rounded Indigenous Coding

%he 57ig 7ook6 is a the#e in this interview. It's a p!aceho! er "or in"or#ation about the c!ass, what the key in"or#ation is, what are the goa!s.
$$
'nswering research /uestions with $tage 1: Public $tory and 9rounded Indigenous Coding -his analytical stage addresses the process o) ma(ing sense employed by )aculty narrators* Although the act o) storytelling itsel) is already a sort o) Dma(ing-sense,E this is the time !hen ?Fll be e7plicitly as(ing my )aculty storytellers to ma(e sense o) their story and simultaneously try to articulate how they are ma(ing sense o) it* 1e !ill loo( )or themes and patterns they see in their o!n speech, as !ell as ho! they e7plain the !ay theyF"e come to notice those themes and patterns as particularly important* ?n other !ords, i) our research 4uestion is about ho! )aculty ma(e sense o) something, this analysis pass gi"es us a )irst loo( at ho! the )aculty storytellers themsel"es ans!er that 4uestion* $tage 2a> Tracing the narrator 3released online= open6licensed4 Tracing the narrator is the )irst o) t!o narrati"e analysis passes based on Doucet N Mauthner* ?n their !ords, the pass Dattends to the*** narrator in the inter"ie! transcripts*** ho! this person spea(s about herBhimsel)*** O!e useP a coloured pencil to trace the Q?A in the inter"ie! transcripts* -his process centres our attention on the acti"e Q?A !ho is telling the story*** highlighting !here the respondent might be emotionally or intellectually struggling to say something* ?t also identi)ies those places !here the respondent shi)ts bet!een Q?A, Q!eA, QyouA or QitA, !hich can signal "aried meanings in the respondentAs perceptions o) sel)*E7li 01ample of $tage 2a: Public $tory 3e1cerpt4
$AR%ICI$A&%: 'e!! the e.a#p!e that you're showing #e is so#ebo y who here is this c!ass an here is the big book, you know, o" a!! the stu"" that goes with the c!ass. 0or the c!ass I taught, you know, there wasn't a big book. So that was essentia!!y, you know, copies o" a!! the rea ings, the version o" the sy!!abus an I ha a!! o" a ay to sort o" sit own an try to have so#ething 1uick so that the stu ents in the c!ass ha a c!ue o" what to o the ne.t week. 2Laughter3 RESEARCHER: (h4huh. $AR%ICI$A&%: So it's been an interesting story in ter#s o" not having a "air a#ount o" in"or#ation about what was one in the past, an not knowing why he chose the things that he chose to rea , an not rea!!y seeing the pattern an not rea!!y even seeing a, you know, a set o" 1uestions that he #ight have ha in his #in . It was *ust wi e open. -ou know, the ownsi e o" that is I i n't rea!!y "ee! co#"ortab!e *ust saying I wi!! o e.act!y what he i because I on't know e.act!y what he i . 2Laughter3 RESEARCHER: Right. $AR%ICI$A&%: -ou know, an then it was, we!! I can't be hi#. I have to be whatever it is that I can be. So then the o! %As starte getting e4#ai!s about can you te!! #e how he use ti#e in c!ass... you wou! have thought 5knowing6 an 5seeing6 .b.n. 8 one by narrator: but no pronoun 5I6 i n't "ee! co#"ortab!e 8sa#e as 5"e!t unco#"ortab!e,: because 5I6 i n't know e.act!y 8is 5e.act!y6 a key wor ,: turning point: 5I6 can't o ;, #ust o -.
Tracing the narrator

8i.o. 9 instea o": i.o. 5#y c!ass6 5I6 was hurrie Inserte 5try to have,6 not *ust 5sit own an have6

#aybe I cou! have spent ti#e be"ore the ter# happene to anticipate this an p!an it out, but in so #any ways I i n't want to rock the boat. I on't know i" there was a big book o" !ike, 5this is how to teach the c!ass.6 RESEARCHER: A book "or the teacher, not necessari!y the stu ent, $AR%ICI$A&%: I" I wou! have necessari!y gone ah, you know, here is the recipe. %his is what I wi!! o this week. %his is what I wi!! o ne.t week to kin o" see the big story so that I cou! con"i ent!y o it... we i n't rea!!y have the resources. a!ternate "uture why 5I6 i n't take that a!ternate "uture
$&
speaking as a!ternate "uture se!" su en!y a 5we6 appears, resources epen ent on others,
Dissertation Proposal: Cross-Disciplinary Faculty Storytelling Commons, Mel Chua 'nswering research /uestions with $tage 2a> Tracing the narrator
$#
-his analysis starts dra!ing out the teaching identities o) the narrator: )irst-person ?, second-person you +tal(ing to themsel"es., a more distant third person, the generic hypothetical DoneE +as in Done must***E., and so )orth* ?t e7plores !hat identities are articulated, ho! they are articulated, and !hat 4ualities and e7periences are articulated in con;unction !ith them* $tage 2b> Tracing other characters 3released online= open6licensed4 Tracing other characters is the second narrati"e analysis pass based on Doucet N Mauthner, !ho call it a Dreading )or social net!or(s, and close and intimate relations*E7lii ? adapt it slightly to as( the 4uestion: i) this !ere a theatre monologue )rom a )ull play, !hat !ould the Dcast o) charactersE on the playbill readH ?n this e7ample, one might ha"e:
$RI)R $R)0: %he #ystery #an who taught this c!ass !ast year, then su en!y an une.pecte !y was unab!e to teach it at the start o" ter#. He's !e"t a rea ing !ist an sy!!abus behin , but no e.p!anation "or the !ogic behin their esign.
01ample of $tage 2b: Public $tory 3e1cerpt4

$AR%ICI$A&%: 'e!! the e.a#p!e that you're showing #e is so#ebo y who here is this c!ass an here is the big book, you know, o" a!! the stu"" that goes with the c!ass. 0or the c!ass I taught, you know, there wasn't a big book. So that was essentia!!y, you know, copies o" a!! the rea ings, the version o" the sy!!abus an I ha a!! o" a ay to sort o" sit own an try to have so#ething 1uick so that the stu ents in the c!ass ha a c!ue o" what to o the ne.t week. 2Laughter3 RESEARCHER: (h4huh. $AR%ICI$A&%: So it's been an interesting story in ter#s o" not having a "air a#ount o" in"or#ation about what was one in the past, an not knowing why he chose the things that he chose to rea , an not rea!!y seeing the pattern an not rea!!y even seeing a, you know, a set o" 1uestions that he #ight have ha in his #in . It was *ust wi e open. -ou know, the ownsi e o" that is I i n't rea!!y "ee! co#"ortab!e *ust saying I wi!! o e.act!y what he i because I on't know e.act!y what he i . 2Laughter3 RESEARCHER: Right. $AR%ICI$A&%: -ou know, an then it was, we!! I can't be hi#. I have to be whatever it is that I can be. So then the o! %As starte getting e4#ai!s about can you te!! #e how he use ti#e in c!ass... you wou! have thought #aybe I cou! have spent ti#e be"ore the ter# happene to anticipate this an p!an it out, but in so #any ways I i n't want to rock the boat. I on't know i" there was a big book o" !ike, 5this is how to teach the c!ass.6 RESEARCHER: A book "or the teacher, not necessari!y the stu ent,
Tracing other characters

&E': $RI)R &ARRA%)R 8pro"essor whose story the narrator is respon ing to: < ca!!e 5so#ebo y,6 etai!s not i#portant, &E': nee 8are in a S%(/E&%S I& CLASS so#ething to o they being cast passive ro!e,:
&E': $RI)R $R)0 #ystery #an= Le"t arti"acts about the course behin , but narrator can't un erstan the !ogic behin the#. 8Soun s !ike narrator a!so can't get in touch with hi# an ask,: &E': )L/ C)(RSE %AS aske about $RI)R $R)0's past actions 8not !ogic behin the#,: since $RI)R $R)0 is gone. Living source o" in"o about the c!ass, in contrast to written #ateria!s !e"t behin . S%(/E&%S I& CLASS on't use the 5big

book6, 8#y probe: $AR%ICI$A&%: I" I wou! have necessari!y gone ah, you know, here is the recipe. %his is what I wi!! o this week. %his is what I wi!! o ne.t week to kin o" see the big story so that I cou! con"i ent!y o it... we i n't rea!!y have the resources.
$0
&E': RES)(RCE $E)$LE, 'ho's the 5we6 here,
Dissertation Proposal: Cross-Disciplinary Faculty Storytelling Commons, Mel Chua 'nswering research /uestions with $tage 2b> Tracing other characters
$5
-his analysis (eeps the )ocus o) the last stage o) analysis and e7pands upon it, e7ploring the interaction bet!een teaching identities and storytelling* Characters are an important element in storytelling: !ho are the players in the story and !hat are their actions and relationshipsH -his analysis uses our understanding o) the story )ormat to unpac( Dteaching identitiesE more through 4uestions li(e: 1* 1hat are the teaching identities articulated by the narrator +in Stage $a.H $* 1hat other characters are in the storyH &* Are these characters related to any o) the teaching identities articulated by the narratorH Go!H +Do they re"eal them, change them, illuminate certain aspects o) them, etcH. #* Do any o) these characters ha"e +or represent. teaching identities o) their o!nH $tage 2c: Cognitive apprenticeships 3released online= open6licensed4 -he Cognitive apprenticeships pass uses this )rame!or( as an a priori theory to loo( at at the interaction across stories, )ocusing on the role that other narrators play in a gi"en narratorFs story* 01ample of $tage 2c: Public $tory 3e1cerpt4
$AR%ICI$A&%: 'e!! the e.a#p!e that you're showing #e is so#ebo y who here is this c!ass an here is the big book, you know, o" a!! the stu"" that goes with the c!ass. 0or the c!ass I taught, you know, there wasn't a big book. ... $AR%ICI$A&%: I" I wou! have necessari!y gone ah, you know, here is the recipe. %his is what I wi!! o this week. %his is what I wi!! o ne.t week to kin o" see the big story so that I cou! con"i ent!y o it... we i n't rea!!y have the resources.
Cognitive apprenticeships
>)/ELI&?: here's a resource 857ig 7ook6: $RI)R &ARRA%)R ha but &ARRA%)R < in contrast < i not >(L%I$LE R)(%ES %) >AS%ER-: i" &ARRA%)R ha the sa#e resources as $RI)R &ARRA%)R, &ARRA%)R #ight not have chosen the sa#e,
'nswering research /uestions with $tage 2c> Cognitive apprenticeships -his analytic pass is the )irst to address the storytelling topic o) our research 4uestion, !hich is curricular re"ision* /ur narrators are honing their abilities in the speci)ic cogniti"e practice o) curricular re"ision, and a cogniti"e apprenticeship is one !ay to describe the manner in !hich these practices are learned* -his analytic pass also pro"ides a )irst, limited !or(ing hypothesis to the portion o) the research 4uestion that deals !ith )aculty sensema(ing* As e7plained earlier in this document, the cogniti"e apprenticeship )rame!or( is to be used as a beginning placeholder until ne! and better themes emerge* $tage 3: $hort $tory 3released online= open6licensed4 -he Public $tory is a long transcript, so it is ne7t condensed into a 1-0 page $hort $tory> ?nspired by Poetic -ranscription and 6thnodrama techni4ues7liii, it uses direct 4uotes )rom the storyteller to illustrate
$8
themes )rom any o) the analysis passes* ?t is designed to be concise, standalone, and engaging, and !ill li(ely be the most !idely read research output* ?t is also used as the inter"ie! prompt )or the ne7t storytellerFs (aw $tory* 01ample of $tage 3: $hort $tory
In !ooking at this 2story, I a#3 i##e iate!y thinking o" what wou! it have been !ike to have the 7ig 7ook o" how to teach this c!ass, the p!aceho! er "or key points, goa!s, written to be share , an how wou! I have use it... I was teaching a c!ass I ha basica!!y no prep ti#e "or, ha a!! o" a ay to sit own, pu!! together stories "ro# the o! %As, the #ateria!s we ha "ro# the !ast ti#e it was taught, an very, very 1uick!y co#e up with so#ething to give to stu ents so that there was so#e stabi!ity. It was *ust wi e open. I i n't rea!!y "ee! co#"ortab!e *ust saying 5I wi!! o e.act!y what 2the previous pro"essor3 i 6 because I on't know e.act!y what he i . 'e!!, I can't be hi#. I have to be whatever it is that I can be. I ha copies o" a!! the rea ings, the sy!!abus. Lots o" wor s on the 2o! 3 sy!!abus are things about 5i" you on't show up "or c!ass...6 I i n't change that. I ha to change the course pro*ect because I i n't rea!!y have the resources to 2gra e3 +@ papers. %i#e, ti#e. It's the one thing that you can't go an get #ore o". Even though there were peop!e who were wi!!ing to he!p, that actua!!y ha its own cost at the get4go 2an 3 I nee e to o so#ething as 1uick!y as possib!e. I rewrote the ob*ectives because we nee e to think about what were the big i eas. 7ecause we wou! !ook at the stu"" 2"ro# !ast year's c!ass3 an go 5it's !ike +@@ pages, oes he rea!!y e.pect you to rea a!! that,6 I can't assign rea ings i" I'# not going to rea the# an be responsib!e "or it. I on't have ti#e to rea +@@ pages... -ou're going to be rea ing a who!e bunch o" so"tware eve!op#ent #etho o!ogies. I'# not going to give you a test at the en o" the week an say 5which one oes this,6 I want to eve!op your abi!ity to be ab!e to engage with these i eas. %here's not a sing!e, universa! #etho . %he reason they a!! e.ist is because they are each speaking to a weakness or so#ething that wasn't a resse so#ewhere e!se. So that en e up being an en uring i ea, 2#aking3 sense o" these things on your own. )nce I i that I ca#e back an !ooke at each week at the rea ings, trie to #ake sure that there was so#e sort o" rea ing that was ta!king about strengths or weaknesses 2o" the #etho o!ogy o" the week3, 2an 3 a case stu y "ro# a co#pany that use it. In the process o" oing that I'# noticing that so#e o" the 2rea ing3 se!ections are not what I wou! have chosen. 0or e.a#p!e one o" the key parts o" any Agi!e #etho is re1uire#ents ana!ysis. He i n't have any rea ings that went rea!!y into that. So I !ooke aroun "or that one an ca#e across a paper by one o" the authors that we were going to o the week a"ter, ta!king about the #etho o!ogy that we ha rea be"ore hi#. 'hat a great opportunity to have this person sort o" sit back an ta!k about these two #etho s, because these are rea! peop!e. %heir i eas i n't co#e out o" so#e #agic bo.. It carrie a story !ine connecting the various peop!e we rea . I" there was a 7ig 7ook o" 5this is how to teach the c!ass,6 I on't know i" I wou! have necessari!y gone 5ah, here is the recipe.6 I probab!y sti!! wou! have trie to "igure out what were the big i eas. (!ti#ate!y I ha to #ake it #y own. %he 7ig 7ook is #e. 2It oesn't3 necessari!y !ook pretty but it oes capture conversations about the c!ass. %he 27ig3 7ook is co#ing out o" the process.
Dissertation Proposal: Cross-Disciplinary Faculty Storytelling Commons, Mel Chua 'nswering research /uestions with $tage 3> $hort $tory -he output o) this analytic pass is the Dpublic storytellingE in our research 4uestion: Go! do )aculty ma(e sense o) teaching identities through public storytelling centered on curricular re"isionH
$9
-he $hort $tory is the public )ace and human-readable deli"erable o) this pro;ect* Although all the intermediate analysis and piles o) data !ill be open to scrutiny, most people !onFt !ade through hundreds o) pages ;ust )or )un* <ecause o) this, a shorter )ormat is needed, one that people can respond to !ith less time and e))ort* 1ithout the output o) this analytic pass, the storytelling o) this research pro;ect is not truly DpublicE or Dscholarship,E as it is di))icult )or others to build o)) the !or(* /ne )unction o) this analytic pass is to gi"e our narrators e7ternal reactions to use in their Dma(ingsense o) teaching identities*E /ur narrators !ill be responding to each othersF stories, since !e use $hort $tories as inter"ie! prompts in this study* $hort $tories !ill also be published online under an open license, but narrators !ill ha"e each othersF responses to !or( !ith and each other to Dper)ormE )or e"en i) nobody else ends up !atching or replying* $ynthesi?ing an answer to the research /uestion This is an illustration of one of multiple ways the stages of analysis we have just demonstrated could combine to answer the research question: ow do faculty ma!e sense of teaching identities through public storytelling centered on curricular revision" -he )aculty themsel"es say that they ma(e sense o) this "ia*** @$tage 1: Public $tory and 9rounded Indigenous CodingA* 1hen they articulate their teaching identities, they trace themsel"es through the narration li(e*** @$tage 2a: Tracing the narratorA, using their descriptions o) other characters in the story in the )ollo!ing manner*** @$tage 2b: Tracing other charactersA* -his matchesBdoesnFt-match up !ith their sel)-description @from $tage 1A in the )ollo!ing !ays: @listA ,et us loo( more closely at the descriptions o) characters )rom @$tage 2a: Tracing the narratorA and @$tage 2b: Tracing other charactersA* Gere, !ith a more detailed unpac(ing o) those characterBnarrator descriptions, !e can see these interesting characteri@ations o) teaching identities @listA* GereFs ho! the articulations and interactions o) these characteri@ations un)olded o"er time and in reaction to each other*** @$tage 2a: Tracing the narratorA and @$tage 2b: Tracing other charactersA* Part o) this study !as the public nature o) the storytelling3 i) interesting interactionsBconclusions )rom that come up, !e tal( about them here @Public analysisA* Carrators described the e7perience during their inter"ie!s as )ollo!s @$tage 1: Public $tory and 9rounded Indigenous CodingA* Cote that there is as o) yet no set plan )or dealing !ith any Public 'nalysis +contributions by persons other than mysel) and the 5 original narrators., but that Public 'nalysis can be sub;ect to any o) the same methods o) analysis as the original narrati"es* 1e no! e7amine the sort o) learning that is happening during this sense-ma(ing process* -a(ing the
$:
)rame!or( o) cogniti"e apprenticeships as a point o) departure, and assuming that the apprenticeships here are around the s(ill o) curricular re"ision, !e can articulate some beha"iors the )aculty e7hibited during their storytelling @$tage 2c: Cognitive apprenticeshipsA* -his )rame!or( is limited )or understanding these beha"iors and does not ade4uately describe these other )orms and instances o) sense-ma(ing !e )ound @listA* 1ith this bac(ground in mind, let us mo"e through se"eral case studies o) @$hort storiesA told by "arious )aculty at "arious times in the process, using the tools and terms !e ha"e already introduced as a !ay to play !ith our understanding o) them*
&%
Chapter %: $o what&
*utputs produced by this study -he pro;ect !ill produce the )ollo!ing outputs !hich may be o) interest to a "ariety o) audiences* All outputs consist o) a blend o) data and analysis* *utput Publication Potential 'udience3s4 Researchers o) )aculty -ranscripts o) DstorytellingE Carrator, !ith -he public de"elopment, teachers and portions o) inter"ie!s, as Public Story researcher !eb, under an students in 4ualitati"e methods edited by narrators )or )acilitation open license courses loo(ing )or sample public release* datasets Anonymi@ed transcripts o) the con"ersation bet!een narrator and researcher Carrator, !ith 6diting during the process o) editing researcher Cot public CBA Con"ersation o) the (aw $tory +original )acilitation transcript. to create the Public $tory> Pri"ate notes ta(en by the researcher, pri"ate materials "oluntarily gi"en to the Pri"ate Data researcher by narrators, and Researcher Cot public CBA pri"ate materials gi"en to the researcher by other study participants* Public notes ta(en on the Public $tory !hile engaged Researchers interested in in the 0diting =rounded Carrator, !ith -he public 4ualitati"e methodology, Conversation. in other indigenous researcher !eb, under an )aculty de"elopment !ords the parts o) the coding )acilitation open license pro)essional +as case studies o) 0diting Conversation the )aculty re)lecting. narrator !ants to ma(e public* Researchers interested in 4ualitati"e methodology, legitimate peripheral Coding the Public $tory )or Researcher, participants in engineering Tracing the narrator= !ith potential -he public education research, such as Analysis Tracing other characters= +optional. !eb, under an engineering pro)essors ne! to passes and Cognitive input )rom the open license education research, apprenticeship> public engineering education graduate and undergraduate students +as a no-commitment, lo!-barrier opportunity to 2escription Creator3s4
&1
Short story
Condensed "ersions o) the Public $tory composed o) Researcher direct narrator 4uotes*
participate in a research pro;ect. Researchers o) )aculty de"elopment, )aculty de"elopment pro)essionals +as -he public materials to use !hen !eb, under an coaching )aculty., ne! and open license )uture )aculty +as in)ormati"e case studies., colleaguesBalumniBstudentsBco mmunity o) narrators
Potential impacts -he production o) a rich public dataset o) ra! engineering education stories that can be used )or )uture research !ithout additional ?R< or data collection* -he production o) short, easily-readable engineering education stories that can be used as case study handouts )or )aculty de"elopment initiati"es* A complete e7ample o) an engineering education pro;ect Dbehind the scenes*E -his may be used )or training and demonstration purposes* Participating narrators may ha"e a deeper understanding o) their sensema(ing process as it relates to curricular re"ision* Participating narrators may strengthen their net!or( o) colleagues, since the publication o) their storytelling sessions pro"ides opportunities )or )urther e7posure o) their pro)essional perspecti"es* Contributing to the de"elopment o) a culture o) transparency in engineering education, and the inclusion and accessibility such transparency attempts to )oster* 'reas for future e1ploration -his study )ocuses on ho! )aculty ma(e sense o) their teaching identities by engaging in storytelling centered around a curricular re"ision* ?t is connected to a number o) topics that could easily pro"ide the impetus o) )uture !or(: 1* 2esign thinking> All participating narrators engaged in a curricular re"ision )ocused on the implementation o) design thin(ing* -he current study !ill not unpac( !hat is meant by the phrase Ddesign thin(ing,E but )uture studies could easily do so* $* Improving the /uality of curricular revisions and the pedagogical e1periences they produce> 1hat constitutes sound pedagogyH 1hat ma(es )or an e))ecti"e curricular re"ision process and end productH &* ;ow institutional politics interact with curricular revisions> ?nstitutional politics, processes, and bureaucracy are part and parcel o) most academic operations, and curricular re"isions are no e7ception* -he current study !ill not e7plore institutional politics in depth, but )uture studies could in"estigate, )or instance, ho! certain policies or administrati"e personalities can help or hinder a curriculum re"ision* > (adically Transparent (esearch 3(T(4> As noted in the section D-he role o) transparency,E this study is the )irst complete deployment o) the R-R methodology* -he a))ordances, limitations, and
&$
e7periences o) using this methodology may be a )ruit)ul area )or later research* Data )rom the )inal debrie)ing inter"ie!s may be especially use)ul )or this, as narrators are as(ed there !hat it !as li(e to participate in an R-R pro;ect* 6"en more potentially use)ul is the pri"ate dataset o) the con"ersations that ta(e place bet!een narrator and researcher during the editing process3 !hat do participants spea( about !hen they speci)ically thin( about modi)ying their data )or public useH
&&
'ppendices
Timeline Dec $%1&: Prelim, storytelling session 1 +some sub;ects. an $%1&: storytelling sessions 1-$, )irst public release o) storiesBanalysis Feb $%1#: storytelling sessions $-&, <ig Committee Chec(-?n Mar $%1#: storytelling sessions &-# Apr $%1#: storytelling sessions # )inish3 mid!ay !riteup May $%1#: brea( un $%1#: storytelling sessions 0-5 ul $%1#: storytelling sessions 5-8 Aug $%1#: storytelling sessions 8 Sep $%1#: semi-)inal narrati"e and short-"ersion compilation N release /ct $%1#: all storytelling sessions completed3 )inal narrati"e and short-"ersion compilation N release Co" $%1#: <ig Committee Chec(-?n, dissertation outline Dec $%1#: complete, compile, N release other & passes o) the #-pass analysis +tracing narrator, characters, cogniti"e apprenticeships. Spring $%1#: !riting
$torytelling session script For details on each stageBoutput +Ra! Story, 6diting Con"ersation, etc*. see the section DSo !hatH: /utputs and potential audiences*E 1* 1elcome and preliminaries3 li"e transcription begins* ?n order to protect narrators, ? assign them copyright o) the inter"ie! so they ha"e )ull )inal control o) the data* $* -he )irst hal) o) the inter"ie! +R1 hour. is the DstorytellingE hal), and the transcript o) this portion is called the (aw $tory> -he prompt ? gi"e the narrator depends on ho! many storytelling sessions they ha"e done so )ar* Storytelling session M1: -ell me the story o) your teaching li)e, )ocusing on the chapter thatFs about the curricular re"ision you participated in* Storytelling session M$-5 +)aculty only.: GereFs a $hort $tory )rom another )aculty storyteller about their curricular re"ision* 1hat story )rom your o!n curricular re"ision e7periences does this remind you o)H Storytelling session M8 +)aculty. or M$ +sta)).: 1hat has it been li(e to participate in this pro;ectH &* -he second hal) o) the inter"ie! +a)ter an optional short brea(. is the 0diting Conversation hal)* Since !e are using realtime transcription, !e already ha"e the (aw $tory transcript* -he transcription !ill continue in the bac(ground, creating the 0diting Conversation transcript* -he narrator and ? no! go bac( through their transcript and: 6dit )or public release K anonymi@ing, changing, or deleting anything the narrator )eels
&#
#* 0* 5*
uncom)ortable !ith* 1hen the (aw $tory has been edited and appro"ed )or public release, it is called the Public $tory* -he original (aw $tory is then discarded* 6dit )or accuracy K chec(ing dates, name spellings, and other small details* 1riteBdra! 9rounded Indigenous Coding directly on the transcript, re)lecting upon and beginning to collaborati"ely analy@e the story that has ;ust been told* /nce this is )inished, !e ta(e care o) the publishing logistics, described separately in the section DStep by step: Public publishing logistics*E 1rap-up, end transcription, than( narrator* Short personal researcher debrie) in a combination o) pri"ate and public notes*
Technical setup of a storytelling session -he inter"ie! !ill ta(e place at a 4uiet location o) the narratorFs choice* A microphone !ill be set up to record "ocal audio )rom the narrator +and !hen possible, the researcher.* -his recording !ill only be used )or chec(ing transcriptions )or accuracy !ithin 5 months a)ter the inter"ie! date, at !hich point it !ill be discarded* ?) the inter"ie! is remote, "ideo chat !ill be set up bet!een the narrator and researcher to )acilitate the con"ersation* -his "ideo !ill ne"er be recorded3 only the audio portion o) the inter"ie! !ill be recorded* Most inter"ie!s !ill be remote* For both remote and in-person inter"ie!s, a pro)essional transcriptionist !ill listen to the con"ersation and transcribe it in realtime* -his realtime transcription techni4ue is )re4uently used to ma(e classrooms accessible to dea) students* -he transcription te7t !ill be "isible to, and editable by, both researcher and narrator +the Dsub;ectE in the diagram belo!. in realtime*
i* <rent, R*, N Felder, R* M* +$%%&.* A Model )or 6ngineering Faculty De"elopment* #ntl$ %ournal of &ngr$
&ducation, '(+$., $&#K$#%*
ii* Shulman, ,* S* +1::9.* DCourse anatomy: -he dissection N analysis o) (no!ledge through teaching*E The course portfolio: ow faculty can improve their teaching to advance practice and improve student learning* 6d* Pat Gutchings* 1ashington, DC: American Association o) Gigher 6ducation* iii* Stre"eler, R* A*, <orrego, M*, N Smith, 2* A* +$%%8.* DMo"ing )rom the Qscholarship o) teaching and learningA to Qeducational researchA: An e7ample )rom engineering*E ?n D* R* Robertson +6d*., To #mprove the )cademy, >olume $0 +pp*1&:-1#:.* <olton, MA: An(er*
i" ?bid*
"* 2egan, R* +$%%:.* #mmunity to change: how to overcome it and unloc! potential in yourself and your
organization* <oston, Mass: Gar"ard <usiness Press* "i* Adler, *M* +$%1$.* *iving into the story: )gency and coherence in a longitudinal study of narrative identity development and mental health over the course of psychotherapy$ ournal o) Personality and Social Psychology, 1%$+$., &58-&9: "ii* Collins, A*, <ro!n, * S*, N Golum, A* +1::1.* Cogniti"e apprenticeship: ma(ing thin(ing "isible* )+&,#-). &/0-)T1,, 2, &9K#5* "iii* Sorcinelli, M* D* +1::$.* Ce! and ;unior )aculty stress: Research and responses* ?n M* D* Sorcinelli N A* 6* Austin +6ds*., /eveloping new and junior faculty* Ce! Directions )or -eaching and ,earning, Co* 0%* San Francisco: ossey-<ass* i7* Sorcinelli, M* D*, N Austin, A* 6* +1::$.* De"eloping ne! and ;unior )aculty* Ce! Directions )or -eaching and ,earning, Co* 0%* San Francisco: ossey-<ass* 7* <orrego, M*, Froyd, * 6*, N Gall, -* S* +$%1%.* Di))usion o) 6ngineering 6ducation ?nno"ations: A Sur"ey o) A!areness and Adoption Rates in J*S* 6ngineering Departments* %ournal of &ngineering &ducation, ((+&., 190K$%8* 7i* Fincher, S*, Richards, <*, Finlay, *, Sharp, G*, N Falconer, ?* +$%1$.* Stories o) Change: Go! 6ducators Change -heir Practice* ?n Proceedings of the 3rontiers in &ducation -onference* Seattle, 1A: ?666* 7ii* -enenberg, *, N Fincher, S* +$%%8.* /pening the Door o) the Computer Science Classroom: -he Disciplinary Commons* Presented at the S?=CS6 Symposium, Co"ington, 2': ACM*
7iii* http:BB!!!*asee*orgBcon)erences-and-e"entsBcon)erencesBannual-con)erenceB$%1& 7i"* http:BB)ie-con)erence*orgB 7"* http:BBcollaboratory*olin*eduB 7"i * http:BB!!!#*ncsu*eduBunityBloc(ersBusersB)B)elderBpublicB1or(shops*html 7"ii* http:BB!!!*)acultydi"ersity*orgB 7"iii* <oyer, 6* ,* +1::8.* Scholarship reconsidered: priorities of the professoriate* OPrinceton,
C* *P3
San Francisco, Cali)*: Carnegie Foundation )or the Ad"ancement o) -eaching 3 ossey-<ass 7i7* http:BBolin*edu 77* http:BBberea*edu 77i* http:BB!!!*olin*eduBaboutSolinBhistoryBolinShistory*asp7 77ii* http:BB!!!*olin*eduBadmissionBcosts*asp7 77iii* http:BB!!!*berea*eduBaboutBhistoryB 77i"* http:BB!!!*berea*eduBaboutB
77"* See "ii* 77"i* <ro!n, * S*, Collins, A*, N Duguid, P* +1:9:.* Situated Cognition and the Culture o) ,earning* &ducational
,esearcher, '4+1., &$K#$*

77"ii* TUVWXYZ[\Z]\Z^_`abc\ZThe reflective practitioner:
how professionals thin! in action* Ce! 'or(:
<asic <oo(s*
77"iii* Drey)us, S* 6*, N Drey)us, G* ,* +1:9%, February.* A Fi"e-Stage Model o) the Mental Acti"ities ?n"ol"ed
in Directed S(ill Ac4uisition* Storming Media* 77i7* <runer, * S* +1::1.* -he Carrati"e Construction o) Reality* -ritical #nquiry, '4+1., 1K$1*
777* ibid* 777i* ibid* 777ii* Mishler, 6* =* +1:95.* ,esearch interviewing : context and narrative* Cambridge, Mass*: Gar"ard
Jni"ersity Press*
777iii* Golstein, * A*, N =ubrium, * F* +1::0.* The active interview* -housand /a(s: SA=6 Publications* 777i"* see ii* 777"* http:BB!!!*gnu*orgBphilosophyB)ree-s!*html 777"i* ,a"e, *, N 1enger, 6* +1::1.* Situated learning : legitimate peripheral participation* Cambridge 777"ii* 5omen6s
O6nglandP3 Ce! 'or(: Cambridge Jni"ersity Press* ways of !nowing: the development of self7 voice7 and mind* +1::8. +1%th anni"ersary ed*.* Ce! 'or(: <asic<oo(s*
emerging con)luences* ?n The Sage andboo! of 8ualitative ,esearch +9th ed*, >ol* &.* ,ondon: Sage*
777"iii* =uba, 6* =*, N ,incoln, '* S* +$%%0.* Chapter 9: Paradigmatic contro"ersies, contradictions, and 777i7* ,ather, P* +1::1.* 9etting smart: feminist research and pedagogy with:in the postmodern * Ce! 'or(:
Routledge*
7l* ibid* 7li* Doucet, A*, N Mauthner, C* S* +$%%9.* 1hat can be (no!n and ho!H Carrated sub;ects and the ,istening =uide* 8ualitative ,esearch, 4+&., &::K#%:* 7lii* ?bid* 7liii* =lesne, C* +$%11.* ;ecoming qualitative researchers: an introduction +#th ed*.* <oston: Pearson*

Mel&#39;s Prelim v.1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mel&#39;s Prelim v.1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dissertation Proposal: Cross-Disciplinary Faculty Storytelling Commons, Mel Chua

p* $8 p* $9 p* &% p* &1 p* && p* &# p* &0

Dissertation Proposal: Cross-Disciplinary Faculty Storytelling Commons, Mel Chua

Dissertation Proposal: Cross-Disciplinary Faculty Storytelling Commons, Mel Chua

Dissertation Proposal: Cross-Disciplinary Faculty Storytelling Commons, Mel Chua

Chapter 2: Participants and positionality

Dissertation Proposal: Cross-Disciplinary Faculty Storytelling Commons, Mel Chua

Chapter 3: Cognitive apprenticeship as a priori framework

Dissertation Proposal: Cross-Disciplinary Faculty Storytelling Commons, Mel Chua

Chapter : !arrative analysis as methodology

Dissertation Proposal: Cross-Disciplinary Faculty Storytelling Commons, Mel Chua

Chapter ": The role of transparency

Dissertation Proposal: Cross-Disciplinary Faculty Storytelling Commons, Mel Chua

Dissertation Proposal: Cross-Disciplinary Faculty Storytelling Commons, Mel Chua

Chapter #: $tep by step

Dissertation Proposal: Cross-Disciplinary Faculty Storytelling Commons, Mel Chua

9rounded Indigenous Coding

Dissertation Proposal: Cross-Disciplinary Faculty Storytelling Commons, Mel Chua

Tracing the narrator

Dissertation Proposal: Cross-Disciplinary Faculty Storytelling Commons, Mel Chua

01ample of $tage 2b: Public $tory 3e1cerpt4

Tracing other characters

Dissertation Proposal: Cross-Disciplinary Faculty Storytelling Commons, Mel Chua

&E': RES)(RCE $E)$LE, 'ho's the 5we6 here,

Dissertation Proposal: Cross-Disciplinary Faculty Storytelling Commons, Mel Chua

Dissertation Proposal: Cross-Disciplinary Faculty Storytelling Commons, Mel Chua

Dissertation Proposal: Cross-Disciplinary Faculty Storytelling Commons, Mel Chua

Dissertation Proposal: Cross-Disciplinary Faculty Storytelling Commons, Mel Chua

Dissertation Proposal: Cross-Disciplinary Faculty Storytelling Commons, Mel Chua

Dissertation Proposal: Cross-Disciplinary Faculty Storytelling Commons, Mel Chua

Dissertation Proposal: Cross-Disciplinary Faculty Storytelling Commons, Mel Chua

,esearcher, '4+1., &$K#$*

how professionals thin! in action* Ce! 'or(:

You might also like

Mel's Prelim v.1

Mel's Prelim v.1