The Dialogue Essay (5 Points)

(Fulfills Scripted Interview Requirement for ENG101 at John Jay College)

The scripted interview requirement of ENG101 expects students to engage other academic researchers and
scholars in conversation. We are going to take this requirement one step further and use the research that we
have read to create an interview-based original study. At this point in the course, as a collective, we have read
at least MANY different researchers and scholars discussing a range of issues about digital cultures in the 21
st

century. Together, we have done the work of what is called a literature review (reading and presenting the
extant sources on a topic). We are more than ready to move forward with a study now.

During class, you will take your interview questions and run your own focus group among your peers. You
will treat what you hear in your focus groups (you will take notes on this) as your DATA and write your own
original study. Please be sure to follow all of the guidelines for the focus group that are offered during class (if
you are not in class or late on that day, please look at the agenda for class to see what you need to do).

After you have collected your data, you will essentially be writing a paper--- a research study. Notice how
writing happens in this kind of research. The topics and processes have been chosen for you this time, but the
practices will look similar when you design your own study at the end of the semester. Heres the process in its
most simple, skeletal form. You start with background reading about a topic or issue that you have chosen. Then
you collect data using a specific methodology that best matches your study. You adhere to all guidelines of
research with human subjects and ethical research practices. You write up your study. Then you publish it.
Notice that you do not start with an argument and then simply collect sources at the library to back up your
position. That may be how research starts, but it is not how it ends.

With the data that you collect in class, you will write up your study in, at least, four parts:
1. An Introduction: You have a few options for how you might write your opening. Think about what you
want to say about your data and about what you want your own writing/style to do. Here are strategies:
Straight, no-chaser: You give an overview of the issues and polemics at stake. You describe the different
aspects of your study and then offer something that works almost like the traditional thesis statement as
the last sentence of a 1-2 paragraph introduction.
Anecdotal: You open with a current event or some other anecdote directly related to the topic of your
study. You describe the anecdote in a provocative way. Then you explain how your study will
illuminate that phenomenon/event.
Narrative: You open with a personal story directly related to your study. You describe your personal
story in a provocative way. Then you explain how your study will illuminate that phenomenon/event
in your life.
There is no minimum length here. If you choose a straight, no-chaser introduction, you will write
something short. If you chose the anecdotal or narrative introduction, then your introduction will be
longer.

2. A Literature Review + Methods Section: In this section, you will discuss your article (use your homework
writing) in a way that shows you have command and knowledge of this topic. Then you will discuss how
you conducted your study. Please see Carmens example for a crash course in research language and
anonymity (look at the bottom of the next page). This section should be at least 300 words. This should be
written as a subsection with its own title.

3. A Findings Section: This is where you will tell exactly what you learned from your data. You need to write
this as a story, not as a list. You cannot state your interview question(s) and then just list what everyone
said. This is a not a recipe; it is data analysis. The easiest way to do this is to design themes or categories
and discuss the data that way. You are really writing up a report of what your focus group said here. You
are NOT giving your opinion or discussing who agreed or disagreed with you. This section should be at
least 300 words. This should be written as a subsection with its own title.

4. A Discussion Section: This is where you talk about your perspectives and bring everything together. What
course of action should be taken next? What should readers learn, think, and take away from this research
that you did? What is the big take-away? What is the change or new thinking that you want to effect?
Why? This section should be at least 300 words. This should be written as a subsection with its own title.

This project gives you the opportunity to engage original research. As a team, you could collectively publish your essay as
one, combined research study. You may not choose to do so, but you should all begin seriously considering publishing in
undergraduate journals. Annual, national, peer-reviewed journals dedicated to the publication of undergraduate student
research have become more prevalent. The increased opportunities for undergraduates to publish in national venues are
now part of the overall educational experience and the process of self-discovery through research. Creative venues have
often existed for undergraduate publications; the new trend in undergraduate publishing, however, also opens
opportunities for research publication. Please remember: you are not competing with one another here. You are competing
as a cohort with your peers across the country and showing what JJay students can REALLY do!

Your Point-Spread (5 Points)
1) I gave my overall study and each subsection an interesting title. I fulfilled the word length
requirements and edited my work for surface correctness.

2) My introduction matches the overall style and feel of my essay and works well to give a peek into
my study.

3) I discuss the reading in a way that shows I have command and knowledge of this topic. I then
formally discuss my focus group methodology.

4) I discuss my data in an interesting way. I have made a sincere attempt to write my findings section
in a way that is immediate and forward-looking.

5) I did not cause anyone in my focus group to lose the will to live with my crazy questions or
generally foul disposition. I was a worthy collaborator, listener, AND researcher DURING
CLASSTIME (this means you were not absent on this day of class) and fulfilled all deadline
requirements (this means none of your work was submitted late).

Total


Sample: Carmen's Literature Review and Methodology Section
In Multimodal Composition (2007), Takayoshi and Selfe make the compelling case that writing in college
classrooms looks no different than 150 years ago though literate activity across multiple, social, global locations
and industries has changed drastically. What I have found most compelling is their central argument regarding
technological innovation and power. They argue, for instance that in the Phaedrus... Plato has Socrates express
the concern that writing weakens the memory and can neither defend itself nor represent truth to others (p. 1).
In the 16th century, such anti-print expressions also resonated with the Church which thought the printing
press was dangerous, because the masses suddenly had access to information and could use the form to make it
sound like them. Though it is difficult to even imagine today that people once thought the new technology of
writing and books was the work of the devil, the history that Takayoshi and Selfe offer compel us to see
that resistance to new technologies from the elite and/or upper-educated classes is an issue of social control.
Even more compelling for me, however, are the views of young people themselves who find themselves, often
unknowingly, at a curious crossroads. On the one hand, new technologies seem a taken-for-granted way of life,
even when one does not fully participate in these worlds: endless apps that even teach you how to use
technology, new modes of writing from texting to tweeting, new forms of visualization from vining to
instagramming. On the other hand, many of these young students' professors will situate these digital literacies
in ways that sound similar to the print politics of the 16th Century Church, namely that the masses are running
amok with new information and losing the sanctity of previously prescribed forms of writing and knowledge.
Given my own personal experiences with negative reactions to my use of technology in the classroom [I will
discuss this as my introduction], this crossroads hardly seems an exaggeration.

What do young people themselves think of digital technologies and classrooms? What are the challenges that
they see themselves facing in a professional world that expects digital competence when their classrooms do not
include this (Pannapacker, 2013)? These exact questions shaped the format of a small focus group in 2014 at a
large, public urban university of entering college students. Divergent views were encouraged such that
students knew no consensus or agreement was necessary or even positive. Conversation was allowed to flow
without interjections.