Theorizing Mental Models in Disciplinary Writing Ecologies through Scholarship, Talk-Aloud

250 Pages·2014·1.47 MB·English

THEORIZING MENTAL MODELS IN DISCIPLINARY WRITING ECOLOGIES THROUGH
SCHOLARSHIP, TALK-ALOUD PROTOCOLS, AND SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS

Laural L. Adams

A Dissertation

Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green
State University in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
August 2014
Committee:
Lee Nickoson, Advisor
Jorge Chavez
Graduate Faculty Representative
Kristine L. Blair
Sue Carter Wood
© 2014
Laural Lea Adams
All Rights Reserved
iii
ABSTRACT

Lee Nickoson, Advisor

This project explores how disciplinary habits of mind are circulated through
forms of representation to instantiate English Studies disciplines, institutions which then shape
scholars’ practices for producing knowledge. Using a critical discourse analysis on scholarship,
semi-structured interviews, and a talk-aloud protocol, I find that scholars' thinking and writing
rely heavily on mental models. Scholars employ small-scale working representations of dynamic
systems to help them reason through disciplinary problem spaces, including research questions
and composing issues. Unlike the sciences, English Studies fields have not fully exploited
mental models in research and teaching; nor have they been considered fully in writing studies’
research on cognition and writing. In order to understand the role of mental models in writing
and disciplinarity, I employ ecology theory to link the representational nature of mind to external
media.
I find that as scholars write, they produce complex mental models of disciplinary content
that are comprised of objects of study, relationality between these objects, and discipline-
specific forms of dynamism applied to “run” the models. Mental models are multimodal
compositions that employ representational modalities afforded by “mind,” such as force, image,
and affect; their design reveals scholars’ tacit values and assumptions. My research suggests that
reflecting on mental models can enable scholars to extend their reasoning and critically evaluate
their assumptions. During writing and revision, scholars model a generic reader’s mind
“unfolding” as it encounters the writing in order to anticipate eventual readers’ “situation
models.” Scholars also model hypothetical exchanges with familiars with whom they have
iv
previously written in order to predict critiques and feedback. Mental models have a significant
role in enculturating new members and constructing and maintaining disciplinarity. I propose
that a facility with mental models is a significant component of reasoning-based “literacies” and
suggest ways that scholars and teachers can make deliberate use of mental models in scholarship
and in teaching writing. I describe the significance of mental models in knowing and composing
in new media contexts with multimodal affordances that compare and contrast to those of the
mind. I also suggest additional methods for analyzing and collecting data on mental models and
writing.
v

To my boys, whom I hope to inspire to live happily and fulfill their goals and dreams.
vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I thank my family for all your support over the years, no matter what direction my life
seemed to be taking me. We all need people who take us seriously, who believe our quests
matter and hope for our happiness. Thanks, Mom and Ernie, for being quirky, for teaching me
unconventional ways to see the world and how to find joy in it no matter what. Thanks, Dad, for
loving me even though I’m quirky! Thanks also for giving me courage through your emotional
and financial support along the way. Thanks to my brother, who always knows what to say when
I need to hear it: “Don’t worry, Laural. You are well-received” and “Laural, make sure you keep
–!” (You know the usual reminder when we part ways.) Thank you, Shawn, for suffering through
all the jabs from all the MFA students about how you were spending four years to get a Ph.D. in
teaching first-year comp, and for patiently explaining to us again and again that rhetoric and
writing is a fascinating, expansive, important set of fields. Thank you, Martha and Mike, for
what I know are enduring friendships—how did I get so lucky? Chris, thank you for cheering me
on in the final stretch (painful hour spilling into painful hour, each striking me like the scholarly
equivalent of water torture!) and for telling me often that I am remarkable, that my project is
important. Thanks to the people who participated in my study and gave so generously of their
time and their honest (and difficult) reflection. Thanks also to the two other participants whose
work I did not have time to include as findings here; our exchanges nonetheless inform this
project and I am committed to sharing them later in other forms of scholarship. Lastly, I thank
my committee for their support, their insightful feedback, and their willingness to let me explore
a topic that fell in uncertain interdisciplinary domain. Lee, you know much about the difficulties
of my journey, and I have so appreciated your empathy and your belief in my ability to
persevere—thank you!
vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
CHAPTER 1. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE……………………………………… ... 1
Overview of the Project ............................................................................................. 1
Introduction: The Importance of Mental Models in Reasoning and Writing ............ 3
Early Research on Cognition and Writing: Connections to Mental Models and
Other Knowledge Structures ...................................................................................... 13
Knowledge Structures in Problem Representation and Content Domains ...... 16
Calls for Socio-Cognitive Models of Writing ............................................................ 19
Theories of Mind: Computational, Representational, and Embodied ....................... 21
Knowledge Structures and Their Role in Writing: Schemas, Scripts
Frames, and Mental Models ....................................................................................... 25
Cross-Disciplinary Research on Knowledge Structures .................................. 29
Mental Models Explored More Fully .............................................................. 33
Writing Ecologies and the Role of Cognition in the Production of
Disciplinary Knowledge ............................................................................................ 37
Research Questions .................................................................................................... 46
CHAPTER 2. THE RESEARCH PROCESS: METHODOLOGY AND METHODS
FOR STUDYING HOW KNOWLEDGE STRUCTURES ARE CUED IN
SCHOLARLY DISCOURSE ................................................................................................ 49
Overview……………………………………………………………….. .................... 49
Examining a Mental Model to Reveal the Challenges in Studying Them ................... 54
Summary of the Steps in the Research Process ........................................................... 63
viii
Critical Discourse Analysis, a Methodology for Ideology .......................................... 65
Methods for Analyzing How Knowledge Structures Are Cued in Scholarly
Discourse (Scholarship, Interviews, and Talk Aloud Protocols) ................................. 67
Discoursal Evidence for Schemas and Scripts ................................................... 70
Discoursal Evidence for Frames ........................................................................ 71
Discoursal Evidence for Mental Models ........................................................... 72
CHAPTER 3. HOW ENGLISH STUDIES SCHOLARS CONSTRUCT AND USE
MENTAL MODELS TO PRODUCE SCHOLARLY KNOWLEDGE ................................ 74
Overview……………………………………………………………….. .................. 74
Participant #1, “Blake” .............................................................................................. 75
Participant #2, “Jillian” .............................................................................................. 90
Participant #3, “Lily” ................................................................................................. 103
Summary of Findings ................................................................................................. 113
CHAPTER 4. MENTAL MODELS AND METHODS: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
FUTURE STUDY VIA DISCOURSE ANALYSIS………………………. ......................... 116
Overview……………………………………………………………….. .................. 116
Three Examples of Discoursal Analysis: Identifying How Writers Cue Readers
to Construct Mental Models ...................................................................................... 122
Example 1: Discoursal Cues for Models in “Inventing the
University” ..................................................................................................... 124
Example 2: Discoursal Cues for Models in “Cognition, Convention,
and Certainty” ................................................................................................ 126
Example 3: Discoursal Cues for a Hypothetical Model from “Cognition,
Convention and Certainty” in a New Media Context .................................... 132
ix
Potential Coding Schemes for Analyzing How Discoursal Data Cues
Mental Models ........................................................................................................... 137
Coding for Functional Attributes of Mental Models ..................................... 137
Coding for Dynamism .................................................................................... 141
Coding for Semantic Structures in Order to Identify Other Forms
of Relationality .............................................................................................. 147
Coding for Frames, Scripts, and Schemas ..................................................... 150
Coding Mental Models as Cognitive Representations ............................................... 151
Why Use a Semiotic Approach to Analyzing Mental Models? ..................... 151
Using Bezemer and Kress’ Approach to Semiotic Analysis on Thick
Descriptions of Mental Models ...................................................................... 156
Furthering a Critical Analysis of Mental Models in Writing Ecologies .................... 165
Summary of Methods for Data Analysis ................................................................... 168
Summary of Methods for Analyzing Discoursal Data on Cuing
Mental Models ............................................................................................... 169
Summary of Methods for Analyzing Mental Models as Cognitive
Representations .............................................................................................. 172
Final Observations on Limitations ............................................................................. 173
CHAPTER 5. MENTAL MODELS IN DISCIPLINARY WRITING ECOLOGIES .......... 179
Some Basic Features of Mental Models in Writing and Knowing ............................ 179
Subcomponents and General Traits of Mental Models ................................. 179
Mental Models’ Relationship to Other Knowledge Structures ...................... 183
Multimodal Nature of Disciplinary Writing Ecologies ............................................. 193
An Eco-Cognitive Perspective on English Studies Fields in
x
Institutional Settings ...................................................................................... 193
The Multimodal Nature of Mental Models and How They Participate in
Multimodal Composing and Scholarship ...................................................... 194
Thinking about Writing in English Studies Disciplines ................................ 203
Links between Mental Models and Rhetorical Theory .............................................. 209
Mental Models and Doxa ............................................................................... 209
Mental Models and the “Audience Addressed” ............................................. 211
Mental Models, Persuasion, the Rhetorical Situation, and Genre ................. 213
A Pedagogy of Mental Models for Novice Writers ................................................... 217
Mental Models and Writers Reading ............................................................. 217
Mental Models, Socio-cognitive Theories of Writing, and the Production
of Scholarly Knowledge in Disciplinary Writing Ecologies ..................................... 221
WORKS CITED………………………………………………………………………… … 223
APPENDIX. HUMAN SUBJECTS REVIEW BOARD DOCUMENT ………………… … 237