Chapter 4: Analysis Part 1
4.2 Categories emerging from the vignettes
Based on the individual student pathways through the coded data, further categories were identified and labelled (Fig.4.1). These were generated by surveying the vignettes for each student and checking with the data that the concept could be supported.
vignettes
Fig. 4.1: Category labels developed from vignettes
As shown in Figure 4.1 the categories should also be viewed as feeding into each other.
(i) Defining the categories
In the following section the categories shown in figure 4.1 are explained.
Self-identity Relationship with context Self-management; self-awareness and sense of control Positive/enabled Fragile/undermined Mixed (Open to change) Concordant Strategic Ambivalent Resistant Alienated (Open to change) Awareness/non awareness In control/no control Strategies as: effective, costly, ineffective, unrecognised Difficulties resolved or unresolved Support accessed or no support (Open to change)
Positive/enabled, fragile/undermined
The terms are not evaluative of success, but how the students feel about themselves as essay writers. It is possible therefore for them to feel ‘fragile’ and ‘undermined’ and still be successful in
assessment terms. I assume that the writers assert their best efforts in the light of their current perceptions. The alternative terms were used in order to situate the description both within the person and within the context; writers may feel enabled or
undermined by the context along with the presence or absence of individual resources based on their experience. The terms are not intended to define a stable point at which the writers have arrived, but a dynamic state of ‘becoming’ or the struggle to achieve it (Barnett 2007:99). This process occurs through ‘assemblies’ of meaning arising from patterns of experience (Gee 1999:47) and the take-up, rejection or feigning of roles and identities through interaction with particular contexts (Ivanic 1998).
Relationship with context
Concordant: This does not imply successful ‘enculturation’ into their
discipline (Lea & Street 1998) but a concordance between how they position themselves and what they perceive their discipline as requiring. They are achieving authenticity (Barnett 2007) and can decide the role they wish to take up, whether in respect of essay writing or dyslexia.
Strategic: This suggests an approach that is often assessment
oriented and actively foregrounds attempting to meet tutor expectations. It is akin to approaches identified by Marton and Säljo (1997:53) where students ‘economise on their efforts’ partly in response to the demands of the context. It also resonates with some of the key behaviours of a strategic learner suggested by Riding and Rayner (1998) including the selection of specific methods to achieve a goal.
Ambivalent: This reflects a struggle for understanding of
expectations because of their implicit nature (Hyland 2009; Lillis 2001; Turner 1999). It implies a slightly jaundiced view of their departments, but does not exclude strong engagement with their subject and disciplinary values.
Resistant: Resistance is knowingly enacted and requires a confident
understanding of expectations and confidence in one’s own
position. A deliberate choice is made about whether to conform to requirements or not. This might involve Ivanic’s suggestion of feigning a writing identity (Ivanic 1998), but deliberately doing so.
Alienated: This comes about because of difficulty with
understanding or identifying with disciplinary or institutional values to the point where one’s own position is undermined. Students do not know what to do or how to be. (Barnett 2007; Bartholomae 1985).
Self-management
This is broken down into self-awareness and sense of control. It makes reference to the relationship outlined by McLoughlin, Fitzgibbon and Young (1994) between self-awareness and development of effective strategies leading to compensation for difficulties. Awareness is crucial but compensation has to be seen in terms of the costs involved in achieving it (Herrington & Hunter- Carsch 2001). Self-management also involves a belief in being able to achieve ones aims in a particular activity (Burden 2005) and a capacity for self-regulation (Wolf & Kaplan 2008).
(ii) Categories applied to individual students
How these categories apply to individual students is shown in Tables 4.1 and 4.2. Students can present a mixed picture, which can be in the process of changing. Strengths and difficulties are also constituted differently for different students in the same category and students appear in more than one category. Eight of the eleven students are categorised as feeling strong and enabled, but three of those experience differing degrees of risk to their strengths and are referred to as belonging to a ‘mixed’ category. Three students are categorised as feeling fragile or undermined. Table 4.1 shows how the students perceive themselves as writers and their relationship with the context.
Table 4.1: Student self-identities and relationships with context. *Students not identified as dyslexic. xx√ strengths slightly at risk; x√ strengths at risk
Table 4.2 shows the categories used to label the students’ self- management in terms of their self-awareness and sense of control. This is identified by their capacity to understand and operate strategies, both in relation to essay writing requirements and managing affective responses. The main focus of this part of the analysis is how effectively they are able to apply strategies rather than what the strategies are. Strategies are therefore categorised as effective or not effective in terms of resolving a perceived difficulty, or as costly or not recognised. The category of ‘no expressed difficulty’ is a comparative term and does not exclude the fact that essay writing is an intellectual challenge for all writers. It is used where writers do not explicitly describe or strongly imply difficulty.
Positive /enabled
Fragile /undermined
Concordant Strategic Ambivalent Resistant Alienated
Adam √ √ √ x x x x Beth* √ x √ x √ x x Ian* √ x x √ x √ x James* √ x √ √ x x x Jenny x √ x x x x √ Liam √ x √ x x x x Rachel* √ xx√ √ x √ x x Rob √ x x √ x x x Ruth √ x√ √ x √ x x Sophie x √ x x x x √ Suzanne x √ x x x x √
1
5
7
Aware In control Strategies Difficulties perceived as resolved
Difficulties unresolved
effective costly No/ineffective strategy
Not recognised
Adam √ √ (except structure)
√ √ structure x Reading speed, memory, maintaining concentration, spelling (some exceptions) towards resolving attribution of success Structure, ‘appropriate’ language, word-finding, homophones, (support accessed)
Beth* √ √ √ x x x Word count, referencing conventions, long sentences
None expressed (support accessed)
Ian* √ √ √ x x x None expressed None expressed
James* √ √ √ x x x None expressed None expressed
Jenny x x x x √ x Memory, word-finding, Concentration, starting, multi-tasking, self- awareness
Liam √ √ √ x x x Spelling, concentration for reading, good day/bad day for reading
None expressed
Rachel* √ √ √ x x x None expressed Confusion about ‘appropriate’ language.
Rob √ √ √ Spotting
errors such as
punctuation
x x Maintaining attention when reading, some visual disturbance when reading, spelling, word-finding,
Spotting errors e.g. in punctuation
(Support accessed)
Ruth √ √? √? √ x x Slight spelling difficulty, Towards resolving structure and too many notes
Sentence composition. (support accessed)
Sophie x x √? x x √ Structure, ‘appropriate’
language, vocabulary, comprehension, Understanding expectations, accessing literature, , awareness of effects of dyslexia
Suzanne √ x x √ √ x Spelling, some memory issues,
Understanding expectations and ‘appropriate’ language,
1
5
8
Table 4.2: Students’ self-management, strategies and difficulties *Students not identified as dyslexic
good day/bad day esp. for word-finding, structure, reading
Table 4.3 briefly outlines the combined profile for each student in order to give an overview for each.
Adam Mix of positive/enabled and
fragile/undermined. Concordant in his understanding and relationship with current context. Strong self-awareness and sense of control. Effective strategies for many problems.
Perceived difficulties: reading speed, memory, maintaining concentration, word-finding, spelling, structure,
perception of own language, attribution of success Unresolved difficulties: structure, perception of own language.
Changing: attribution of success to chance. Support accessed from housemates, dad and student services (but not currently)
Beth* Positive/enabled. In some ways concordant with context, in others slightly ambivalent. Strong self-awareness and sense of control. Effective strategies
No unresolved difficulties identified.
Support from dad to check for typing errors and long sentences.
Ian* Positive/enabled. Consciously resistant to ways of being of discipline. Now adopting strategic approach to doing what is required. Strong self-awareness and control. Effective strategies
No unresolved difficulties identified.
No support accessed
James* Positive/enabled. Concordant in approach to context with some elements of being strategic. Strong sense of self awareness and control. Effective strategies
No unresolved difficulties identified.
No support accessed
Jenny Fragile/undermined. Alienated by context. No self-awareness (or reluctance to address) or sense of control. Strategies appear ineffective.
Perceived difficulties: concentration, getting started, memory, word- finding and multi-tasking. Unaware of how they affect her.
Unresolved difficulties: concentration, getting started and taking on analysis of own writing. Just beginning student services support
Liam Positive/enabled. Concordant with context. Strong self-awareness and sense of control. Effective strategies.
Aware that may need to adapt strategies as word count requirements change.
Perceived difficulties: spelling, concentration for reading, good day/bad day for reading
No unresolved difficulties identified
No support accessed
Rachel* Positive/enabled. Very slightly fragile/undermined in specific area. Concordant with context but some ambivalence. Strong self-awareness and sense of control in most areas. Effective strategies
Perceived difficulties: confusion about appropriate language requirements. Can resolve.
No support accessed
Table 4.3: Profiles of individual students. * Students not identified as dyslexic
Many of the difficulties expressed are commonly associated with HE essay writers identified as dyslexic (memory, reading speed, spelling, maintaining attention in reading, concentration, sentence composition, essay structure). However, of particular interest here, is that the students’ perceptions of themselves as writers are not reflected in the difficulties they describe. Feeling positive and enabled is not necessarily associated with lack of difficulty, nor is feeling fragile and undermined
context. Strong self-awareness and many effective strategies. Strategies for spotting errors costly in terms of time.
maintaining attention when reading, some visual disturbance when reading, spelling, word-finding, spotting errors e.g. punctuation.
Unresolved difficulties: spotting errors. Support accessed from girlfriend and student services
Ruth Positive enabled with some areas slightly fragile/undermined. Concordant with context with some ambivalence. Strong self-
awareness and strong sense of control in many ways. Effective strategies in some ways, costly in others in terms of time and effort.
Perceived difficulties: structure and sentence composition. Some difficulties with spelling. Concerns about too many notes
Changing situation with addressing notes, structure and sentence problems. No other unresolved difficulties. Support accessed from dad
Sophie Fragile/undermined. Alienated from context. Little self-awareness or sense of control. Has some good strategies but does not
recognise.
Perceived difficulties: structure, accessing the literature, understanding title.
Also lack of awareness of good strategies and effects of dyslexia.
Unresolved difficulties: understanding expectations, lack of awareness of good strategies and effects of dyslexia.
Just beginning student services support
Suzanne Fragile/undermined. Alienated from context. Strong self-awareness but little sense of control. Strategies are costly or ineffective
Perceived difficulties: spelling, word-finding, memory, reading speed, structure, good day/bad day esp. for word-finding, negative feelings about writing
Unresolved difficulties: reading speed, word-finding, structure, negative feelings, good day/bad day.
Support accessed from mum and boyfriend. Just beginning student services support
associated with more difficulty. My suggestion is that a focus only on dyslexia related difficulties as a way of understanding essay writing experience is too narrow. Other aspects of essay writing need to be incorporated and we need to understand how all these factors contribute to positive or fragile perceptions and have a role in creating different essay writing experiences. The following section, therefore, examines the data further for these aspects and explores their role in constructing the students’ experience of essay writing. This follows through my intention to view the students as ‘writers’ rather than ‘dyslexic’.