Advertisement

Today and Tomorrow

  • Jill Fitzgerald

Abstract

Throughout this book, three questions have framed the inquiry and discussion about knowledge and knowing in the study of writing and revision:
  • What constitutes knowledge?

  • Where is knowledge located?

  • How does one get or create knowledge?

Keywords

World View Educational Researcher Stage Model Multiple Reality Literacy Knowledge 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Burnham, C.C. (1984). Research methods in composition. In M.G. Moran & R.F. Lunsford (Eds.), Research in composition and rhetoric: A bibliographic sourcebook (pp. 191–210 ). Westport, CT: Greenwood.Google Scholar
  3. Coleman, J.S., Campbell, E.Q., Hobson, C.J., McPartland, J., Mood, A.M., Weinfeld, F.D., & York, R.L. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Washington, DC: Office of Education.Google Scholar
  4. Emig, J. (1982). Inquiry paradigms and writing. College Composition and Communication, 33, 64–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Faigley, L. (1986). Competing theories of process: A critique and a proposal. College English, 48(6), 527–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fitzgerald, J. (1989). Enhancing two related thought process: Revision in writing and critical reading. The Reading Teacher, 43, 42–48.Google Scholar
  7. Freedman, S.W., Dyson, A.H., Flower, L., & Chase, W. (1987). Research in writing: Past, present, and future. Technical Report No. 1. Center for the Study of Writing. Berkeley, California and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: University of California and Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
  8. Gage, N.L. (1989). The paradigm wars and their aftermath: A “historical” sketch of research on teaching since 1989. Educational Researcher, 18, 4–10.Google Scholar
  9. Geertz, C. (1979). From the native’s point of view: On the nature of anthropological understanding. In P. Rabinow & W. Sullivan (Eds.), Interpretive social science (pp. 225–242 ). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  10. Green, J.L. (in press). Multiple perspectives: Issues and directions. In R. Beach, J. Green, M. Kamil, & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Multidisciplinary perspectives on literacy research. Urbana, IL: National Conference on English.Google Scholar
  11. Guba, E. (1987). What have we learned about naturalistic evaluation? Evaluation Practice, 8(1), 23–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Harste, J.C. (in press). Preface. In R. Beach, J. Green, M. Kamil, & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Multidisciplinary Perspectives on literacy research. Urbana, IL: National Conference on English.Google Scholar
  13. Heap, J.L. (in press). Ethnomethodology and possibility of a metaperspective on literacy research. In R. Beach, J. Green, M. Kamil, & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Multidisciplinary Perspectives on literacy research. Urbana, IL: National Conference on English.Google Scholar
  14. Herrington, A.J. (1989). The first twenty years of Research in the Teaching of English and the growth of a research community in composition studies. Research in the Teaching of English, 23, 117–138.Google Scholar
  15. Hillocks, Jr., G. (in press). Reconciling the qualitative and quantitative. In R. Beach, J. Green, M. Kamil, & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Multidisciplinary Perspectives on literacy research. Urbana, IL: National Conference on English.Google Scholar
  16. Howe, K.R. (1988). Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatibility thesis or dogmas die hard. Educational Researcher, 77(8), 10–16.Google Scholar
  17. Luecke, D., & McGinn, N. (1975). Regression analyses and education production functions: Can they be trusted? Harvard Educational Review, 45, 325–350.Google Scholar
  18. Myers, G. (1986). Writing research and the sociology of scientific knowledge: A review of three new books. College English, 48, 595–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Phillips, D.C. (1987). Philosophy, science, and social inquiry. New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  20. Smith, J.K. (1983a). Quantitative versus qualitative research: An attempt to clarify the issue. Educational Researcher, 12(3), 6–13.Google Scholar
  21. Smith, J.K. (1983b). Quantitative versus interpretive: The problem of conducting social inquiry. In E. House (Ed.), Philosophy of evaluation (pp. 27–52 ). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  22. Smith, J.K., & Heshusius, L. (1986). Closing down the conversation: The end of the quantitative-qualitative debate among educational researchers. Educational Researcher, 15(1), 4–12.Google Scholar
  23. Stayter, F.Z., & Johnston, P. (1990). Evaluating the teaching and learning of literacy. In T. Shanahan (Ed.), Reading and writing together: New perspectives for the classroom (pp. 253–271 ). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jill Fitzgerald
    • 1
  1. 1.Literacy StudiesThe University of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations